Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52851 

14Transit’s allocable share of the facility’s 

program income shall be an amount equal to the 

facility’s total program income, for any period, 

multiplied by a ratio, (a) the numerator of which 

shall be the cumulative amount of funds 

contributed to the facility through a program 

established by transit law, and (b) the denominator 

of which shall be the cumulative amount of all 

Federal funds contributed to the facility, in each 

case at the time transit’s allocable share is 

calculated. 

1To view the applications, go to: http:// 

dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm and 

enter the Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25324. 

2See 71 FR 39386 (July 12, 2006) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2006–25324–6). 

3See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2000–7013). 

performance for facilities constructed 

with funds from FTA’s New Starts 

program would be determined by FTA 

on a case-by-case basis. FTA would 

require real-time monitoring of traffic 

flows to ensure on-going compliance 

with operational performance standards. 

(iii) Program income from the HOT 

lane facility, including all toll revenue, 

is used solely for ‘‘permissible uses.’’

‘‘Permissible uses’’ could mean any of 

the following uses with respect to any 

HOT lane facility, whether operated by 

a public or private entity: (a) Debt 

service, (b) a reasonable return on 

investment of any private financing, (c) 

the costs necessary for the proper 

operation and maintenance of such 

facility (including reconstruction and 

rehabilitation), and (d) if the operating 

entity annually certifies that the facility 

is being adequately operated and 

maintained (including that the 

permissible uses described in (a), (b) 

and (c) above, if applicable, are being 

duly paid), any other purpose relating to 

a project carried out under Title 49 

U.S.C. 5301 et seq. (‘‘transit law’’). In 

cases where the HOT lane facility has 

received (or receives) funding from FTA 

and another Federal agency, such that 

use of the facility’s program income is 

governed by more than one Federal 

program, FTA’s restrictions concerning 

permissible use would not apply to 

more than transit’s allocable share 14 of 

the facility’s program income. FTA 

would not require recipients to assign 

priority in payment to any permissible 

use. 

(c) Transit Fares and Tolls on HOT 

Lane Facilities. FTA would not 

condition reporting of HOT lanes as 

fixed guideway miles following 

conversion from HOV lanes or condition 

any approval or waiver under a Full 

Funding Grant Agreement on a grantee’s 

adopting transit fare policies or a tolling 

authority’s adopting of tolling policies 

concerning, respectively, the price of 

transit services on the HOT lane facility 

and the tolls payable by SOVs. Instead, 

FTA would allow grantees and tolling 

authorities to develop their own fare 

structures for transit services and tolls, 

respectively, on HOT lane facilities. 

Transit fares would remain subject to 49 

U.S.C. 5332 (Nondiscrimination) and 49 

U.S.C. 5307 (Urbanized area formula 

grants). 

(d) No Return of Funds under Full 

Funding Grant Agreements. In the event 

that an HOV facility is converted to a 

HOT facility and the HOV facility has 

received funds through FTA’s New 

Starts program, FTA would not require 

the grantee to return such funds so long 

as the facility complied with the 

conditions set forth in this guidance. 

James S. Simpson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E6–14796 Filed 9–6–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25324, Notice 2] 

Automobili Lamborghini SpA; Bugatti 

Automobiles S.A.S. and Bugatti 

Engineering GmbH; Group Lotus Plc; 

Morgan Motor Company Limited; 

Maserati; Grant of Applications for a 

Temporary Exemption From Advanced 

Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 

208 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of applications for 

temporary exemptions from certain 

advanced air bag provisions of Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection. 

SUMMARY: This notice grants the 

Automobili Lamborghini SpA 

(‘‘Lamborghini’’); Bugatti Automobiles 

S.A.S. and Bugatti Engineering GmbH 

(collectively, ‘‘Bugatti’’); Group Lotus 

Plc (‘‘Lotus’’); Morgan Motor Company 

Limited (‘‘Morgan’’); and Maserati SpA 

(‘‘Maserati’’) applications for temporary 

exemption from certain advanced air 

bag requirements of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

208, Occupant Crash Protection. The 

exemptions apply to the Lamborghini 

Murcielago, the Bugatti Veyron 16.4, the 

Lotus Elise, the Morgan Aero 8, and the 

Maserati Coupe/Spyder. In accordance 

with 49 CFR part 555, the basis for each 

grant is that compliance would cause 

substantial economic hardship to a 

manufacturer that has tried in good faith 

to comply with the standard, and the 

exemption would have a negligible 

impact on motor vehicle safety. 

The exemptions for the Lamborghini 

Murcielago, the Lotus Elise, and the 

Morgan Aero 8 are effective September 

1, 2006 and will remain in effect until 

August 31, 2009. The exemption for the 

Bugatti Veyron 16.4 is effective from 

September 1, 2006 and will remain in 

effect until September 1, 2008. The 

exemption for the Maserati Coupe/ 

Spyder is effective from September 1, 

2006 and will remain in effect until 

December 31, 2007. 

In accordance with the requirements 

of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2), we published 

a notice of receipt of the applications 1

in the Federal Register and asked for 

public comments.2 We received 

comments from four of the petitioners 

(Lamborghini, Lotus, Morgan, and 

Maserati), one trade organization, and 

one individual. Please note that, as was 

done with the notice of receipt, we are 

publishing this decision notice for the 

five applications together to ensure 

efficient use of agency resources and to 

facilitate the timely processing of the 

applications. However, NHTSA 

considered each application 

individually, and our decision regarding 

the temporary exemption for each 

company is discussed separately below. 

DATES: The exemptions from the 

specified provisions of FMVSS No. 208 

for the Lamborghini Murcielago, the 

Lotus Elise, and the Morgan Aero 8 are 

effective September 1, 2006 until 

August 31, 2009. The exemption for the 

Bugatti Veyron 16.4 is effective from 

September 1, 2006 until September 1, 

2008. The exemption for the Maserati 

Coupe/Spyder is effective from 

September 1, 2006 until December 31, 

2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ed Glancy or Mr. Eric Stas in the Office 

of the Chief Counsel at the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NCC–112), 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Room 5215, Washington, DC 20590 

(Phone: 202–366–2992; Fax 202–366–

3820). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and 

Small Volume Manufacturers 

In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the 

requirements for air bags in passenger 

cars and light trucks, requiring what are 

commonly known as ‘‘advanced air 

bags.’’ 3 The upgrade was designed to 

meet the goals of improving protection 

for occupants of all sizes, belted and 

unbelted, in moderate to high speed 

crashes, and of minimizing the risks 

posed by air bags to infants, children, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
52852 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

4When considering financial matters involving 

companies based in the European Union (EU), it is 

important to recognize that EU and U.S. accounting 

principles have certain differences in their 

treatment of revenue, expenses, and profits. Public 

statements by EU manufacturers relating to 

financial results should be understood in this 

context. This agency analyzes claims of financial 

hardship carefully and in accordance with U.S. 

accounting principles. 

5The Safety Act is codified as Title 49, United 

States Code, Chapter 301. 

6 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1). 

and other occupants, especially in low 

speed crashes. 

The advanced air bag requirements 

were a culmination of a comprehensive 

plan that the agency announced in 1996 

to address the adverse effects of air bags. 

This plan also included an extensive 

consumer education program to 

encourage the placement of children in 

rear seats. The new requirements were 

phased in beginning with the 2004 

model year. 

Small volume manufacturers (i.e., 

original vehicle manufacturers 

producing or assembling fewer than 

5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the 

United States) are not subject to the 

advanced air bag requirements until 

September 1, 2006, but their efforts to 

bring their respective vehicles into 

compliance with these requirements 

began several years ago. However, 

because the new requirements were 

challenging, major air bag suppliers 

concentrated their efforts on working 

with large volume manufacturers, and, 

thus, until recently, small volume 

manufacturers had limited access to 

advanced air bag technology. Because of 

the nature of the requirements for 

protecting out-of-position occupants, 

‘‘off-the-shelf’’ systems could not be 

readily adopted. Further complicating 

matters, because small volume 

manufacturers build so few vehicles, the 

costs of developing custom advanced air 

bag systems compared to potential 

profits discouraged some air bag 

suppliers from working with small 

volume manufacturers. 

The agency has carefully tracked 

occupant fatalities resulting from air bag 

deployment. Our data indicate that the 

agency’s efforts in the area of consumer 

education and manufacturers’ providing 

depowered air bags were successful in 

reducing air bag fatalities even before 

advanced air bag requirements were 

implemented. 

As always, we are concerned about 

the potential safety implication of any 

temporary exemptions granted by this 

agency. In the present case, we are 

addressing five separate petitions for a 

temporary exemption from the 

advanced air bag requirements, each of 

which is discussed individually below. 

The petitioners are all manufacturers of 

very expensive, low volume, exotic 

sports cars. 

II. Overview of Petitions for Economic 

Hardship Exemption 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 

and the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, 

Lamborghini, Bugatti, Lotus, Morgan, 

and Maserati have separately petitioned 

the agency for a temporary exemption 

from certain advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The 

basis for each application is that 

compliance would cause substantial 

economic hardship 4 to a manufacturer 

that has tried in good faith to comply 

with the standard. The agency closely 

examines and considers the information 

provided by manufacturers in support of 

these factors, and, in addition, pursuant 

to 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A), determines 

whether exemption is in the public 

interest and consistent with the Safety 

Act.5

A manufacturer is eligible to apply for 

a hardship exemption if its total motor 

vehicle production in its most recent 

year of production did not exceed 

10,000 vehicles, as determined by the 

NHTSA Administrator (49 U.S.C. 

30113). In determining whether a 

manufacturer of a vehicle meets that 

criterion, NHTSA considers whether a 

second vehicle manufacturer also might 

be deemed the manufacturer of that 

vehicle. The statutory provisions 

governing motor vehicle safety (49 

U.S.C. Chapter 301) do not include any 

provision indicating that a manufacturer 

might have substantial responsibility as 

manufacturer of a vehicle simply 

because it owns or controls a second 

manufacturer that assembled that 

vehicle. However, the agency considers 

the statutory definition of 

‘‘manufacturer’’ (49 U.S.C. 30102) to be 

sufficiently broad to include sponsors, 

depending on the circumstances. Thus, 

NHTSA has stated that a manufacturer 

may be deemed to be a sponsor and thus 

a manufacturer of a vehicle assembled 

by a second manufacturer if the first 

manufacturer had a substantial role in 

the development and manufacturing 

process of that vehicle. 

Finally, while 49 U.S.C. 30113(b) 

states that exemptions from a Safety Act 

standard are to be granted on a 

‘‘temporary basis,’’ 6 the statute also 

expressly provides for renewal of an 

exemption on reapplication. 

Manufacturers are nevertheless 

cautioned that the agency’s decision to 

grant an initial petition in no way 

predetermines that the agency will 

repeatedly grant renewal petitions, 

thereby imparting semi-permanent 

exemption from a safety standard. 

Exempted manufacturers seeking 

renewal must bear in mind that the 

agency is directed to consider financial 

hardship as but one factor, along with 

the manufacturer’s on-going good faith 

efforts to comply with the regulation, 

the public interest, consistency with 

Safety Act, generally, as well as, other 

such matters as provided in the statute. 

III. Lamborghini 

Background. Lamborghini is an Italian 

corporation formed in 1963 to produce 

high-performance sports cars. This 

application concerns the Lamborghini 

Murcielago, a vehicle which was 

developed in the mid-1990s and which 

is now scheduled to continue in 

production until 2009. Originally, 

Lamborghini planned to begin selling 

the Murcielago in 1999 and to end 

production before September 2006. 

However, because of financial hardship 

and a change in corporate ownership, 

the petitioner did not begin sales of the 

Murcielago until the very end of 2001, 

and it is now forced to extend the 

product cycle of this vehicle. 

Lamborghini has experienced 

financial problems for several years. 

Over the period from 2001 to 2004, the 

company lost more than $180 million. 

Lamborghini claims this economic 

hardship precluded the timely 

development of a new vehicle that 

could comply with advanced air bag 

requirements. With respect to the 

Murcielago, Lamborghini also has been 

unable to overcome a number of 

engineering problems associated with 

installing advanced air bags in the 

current vehicle configuration. If the 

exemption is not granted, the 

Murcielago model cannot be sold in the 

U.S. during the period 2006–2009, 

which the petitioner stated could 

further delay the introduction of a fully 

compliant vehicle. Thus, Lamborghini 

asks for a temporary exemption from the 

advanced air bag requirements for the 

Murcielago until it is replaced by a 

brand new vehicle in 2009. 

Eligibility. Lamborghini’s total motor 

vehicle production in the most recent 

year of production was less than 10,000 

vehicles. More specifically, the 

petitioner reported the following 

worldwide production and U.S. imports 

over the past few years: 

Lamborghini 

S.p.A. 

Worldwide 

production 

U.S. 

imports 

2002 ................... 434 cars .... 134 cars. 

2003 ................... 702 cars .... 423 cars. 

2004 ................... 2038 cars .. 645 cars. 

2005 (estimate) 1662 cars .. 665 cars. 

However, in 1998, 100 percent of 

Lamborghini was acquired by Audi, a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52853 

7 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25324–15. 

8 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25324–12. 

large motor vehicle manufacturer 

(which is in turn 99.9 percent owned by 

Volkswagen). In discussing its eligibility 

for hardship relief, Lamborghini asserts 

that its relationship with Audi is 

‘‘arm’s-length.’’ Lamborghini operates 

independently, and services provided 

by Audi or Audi affiliates are paid for 

by Lamborghini. 

In making our determination 

regarding eligibility, we note that the 

public comment 7 of the Coalition of 

Small Volume Auto Manufacturers 

(COSVAM) raised the issue of whether 

certain of the petitioners (Bugatti, 

Lamborghini, Maserati) are eligible for 

temporary exemptions under part 555, 

in light of their financial relationships 

to larger parent companies which are 

also vehicle manufacturers. Specifically, 

COSVAM argued that Lamborghini is 

owned by Audi, a vehicle manufacturer 

whose sales in the U.S. market exceeds 

the upper limits for classification as a 

small volume manufacturer. 

Accordingly, the commenter argued that 

Lamborghini should be considered a 

brand produced by major vehicle 

manufacturer Audi, thereby making the 

petitioner ineligible for a temporary 

exemption under part 555 based upon 

higher production values. 

Lamborghini also submitted a public 

comment 8 on its own petition, in which 

it sought to further clarify its 

relationship with its parent company, 

arguing that it is similar to that of 

Ferrari and its parent company (Fiat). 

According to Lamborghini, the 

Murcielago does not resemble nor share 

parts with any vehicle produced by the 

parent company. The petitioner further 

stated that the parent company did not 

assist in the design or engineering of the 

Murcielago, nor did it have any role in 

the manufacturing process for that 

vehicle. In fact, the Murcielago was 

developed prior to Audi’s acquisition of 

Lamborghini in 1998. Furthermore, 

Lamborghini argued that it pays for any 

testing or similar assistance provided by 

Audi. It also stated that Lamborghini 

has its own CEO and Board of Directors, 

and that the company has its own 

research and development, SalesMarketing, and After-Sales departments. 

The agency examined the relationship 

between Lamborghini and Audi. 

Lamborghini S.p.A. is 100% owned by 

Audi AG (which, in turn is 99.1% 

owned by Volkswagen AG). We have 

concluded that Lamborghini is eligible 

to apply for a temporary exemption 

based on the following factors. First, 

there is no similarity of design between 

the cars produced by Lamborghini and 

cars produced by Audi. There is no 

sharing of engines, transmissions, 

platforms, or interior systems, and 

production tooling is unique to 

Lamborghini. Second, Lamborghini has 

indicated that it has paid for all services 

or assistance provided by Audi in 

‘‘arms-length’’ transactions. Third, cars 

are imported and sold through separate 

distribution channels independent of 

the Audi dealer network. Accordingly, 

NHTSA concludes that Audi is not a 

manufacturer of Lamborghini vehicles 

by virtue of being a sponsor. 

Requested exemptions. Lamborghini 

states that it intends to certify the 

Murcielago as complying with the rigid 

barrier belted test requirement using the 

50th percentile adult male test dummy 

set forth in S14.5.1 of FMVSS No. 208. 

The petitioner states that it previously 

determined the Murcielago’s 

compliance with rigid barrier unbelted 

test requirements using the 50th 

percentile adult male test dummy 

through the S13 sled test using a generic 

pulse rather than a full vehicle test. 

Lamborghini states that it, therefore, 

cannot at present say with certainty that 

the Murcielago will comply with the 

unbelted test requirement under 

S14.5.2, which is a 20–25 mph rigid 

barrier test. 

As for the Murcielago’s compliance 

with the other advanced air bag 

requirements, Lamborghini states that it 

does not know whether the Murcielago 

will be compliant because to date it has 

not had the financial ability to conduct 

the necessary testing. 

As such, Lamborghini is requesting an 

exemption for the Murcielago from the 

rigid barrier unbelted test requirement 

with the 50th percentile adult male test 

dummy (S14.5.2), the rigid barrier test 

requirement using the 5th percentile 

adult female test dummy (belted and 

unbelted, S15), the offset deformable 

barrier test requirement using the 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy 

(S17), the requirements to provide 

protection for infants and children (S19, 

S21, and S23) and the requirement 

using an out-of-position 5th percentile 

adult female test dummy at the driver 

position (S25). 

Lamborghini is requesting the above 

exemption for the Murcielago for the 

period from September 1, 2006 to 

August 31, 2009. 

Economic Hardship. Lamborghini 

states that over the four-year period 

from 2001–2004, it lost over $180 

million (145 million euros), with yearly 

losses averaging approximately $47 

million (37 million euros). Lamborghini 

asserts that, notwithstanding 

engineering impracticability described 

below, it could not afford to develop an 

advanced air bag system for the 

Murcielago and to also engineer its fully 

compliant replacement by 2009. 

Lamborghini initially did not foresee 

that the Murcielago would still be in 

production when advanced air bags 

became mandatory. It was designed in 

the mid-1990s and was intended to be 

launched in 1999, with production 

ending in 2006. Due to financial 

hardship and changes in ownership, the 

Murcielago was not offered for sale until 

late in 2001. Further financial hardship, 

compounded by shifts in the exchange 

rate between the U.S. dollar and the 

euro and the need to amortize costs of 

developing the Murcielago, necessitate 

continued production of that vehicle 

until 2009. 

Lamborghini estimates the total cost 

of an advanced air bag program to be 

about $24 million (20 million euros). 

Lamborghini states that the 

development of an advanced air bag 

system for the Murcielago’s successor 

can be funded through the Murcielago’s 

continued U.S. sales. 

If the exemption is denied and U.S. 

sales of the Murcielago end on 

September 1, 2006, Lamborghini 

projects a loss of $12.7 million (10.6 

million euros) for the period between 

September of 2006 and September of 

2009. 

Good faith efforts to comply. Once the 

petitioner realized that the product life 

of the Murcielago would have to 

continue beyond September 2006, 

Lamborghini undertook efforts for 

development an advanced air bag 

system. As early as 2001, Lamborghini 

began contacting air bag manufacturers 

in an effort to develop a compliant 

advanced air bag system. It pursued this 

matter with at least four suppliers. 

However, none provided a workable 

solution. The efforts continued until the 

summer of 2005, at which point 

Lamborghini concluded that technical 

constraints prevented development of 

advanced air bags for the Murcielago. 

Specifics of the technical difficulties are 

described in the petition. 

Lamborghini argues that an 

exemption would be in the public 

interest. The petitioner argues that the 

number of vehicles affected by an 

exemption would be very small and will 

therefore have, at most, a negligible 

impact on the overall safety of U.S. 

highways. Further, the petitioner asserts 

that according to the company’s 

research, the Murcielago is likely to be 

operated only on a limited basis (an 

average of 5,000 miles per year). 

Lamborghini also argues that granting 

an exemption will assure proper parts 

and service are available in the U.S. to 

support existing owners of Lamborghini 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
52854 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

9The 2004 FARS data file—the Annual Report 

File—was created in June 2005; however, the 2004 

FARS file officially closed in February 2006. This 

additional time provided the opportunity for 

submission of important variable data requiring 

outside sources, which may lead to changes in the 

final counts. The updated final counts for 2004 will 

be reflected in the 2005 annual report. 

10 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25324–13 and –14. 

automobiles, thereby benefiting not only 

Lamborghini customers, but also dealers 

and service personnel. Finally, it argued 

that denial of its requested exemption 

would decrease consumer choice in the 

high-performance vehicle market. 

Summary of Public Comments. The 

agency received three comments on the 

Lamborghini petition for a temporary 

exemption. The first comment was 

submitted by Lamborghini itself. In its 

comment, the company stated that its 

situation is similar to Ferrari’s request 

for a temporary exemption from the 

advanced air bag provisions of FMVSS 

No. 208, which the agency granted in a 

notice published in the Federal Register 

on May 22, 2006 (71 FR 29389) (Docket 

No. NHTSA–2005–23093). Specifically, 

Lamborghini presented the following 

arguments in support of its petition. 

Like Ferarri, Lamborghini stated that 

its product cycles must last longer than 

the industry average due to the high cost 

of development and extremely small 

sales volumes. Lamborghini stated that 

it did not anticipate continued 

production of the Murcielago after 

September 1, 2006, but the company 

later determined that it would be 

necessary to continue production of that 

model. According to Lamborghini, 

advanced air bag requirements were not 

anticipated when designing the 

Murcielago’s vehicle platform, which 

arose from a predecessor vehicle 

developed circa 1990. However, the 

petitioner stated that in order to meet 

the advanced air bag requirements, it 

would face the unique challenge of 

needing to completely redesign the 

vehicle before the end of its life cycle. 

Lamborghini stated that it made a good 

faith effort to find a practicable way to 

comply with the advanced air bag 

requirements, but it was unable to do so. 

As discussed previously, Lamborghini 

argued that it is an independent 

manufacturer eligible for an exemption 

under 49 CFR part 555, despite the fact 

that the company is owned by Audi (see 

Eligibility section above for details). 

Lamborghini stated that its vehicle 

also incorporates additional active and 

passive safety systems, including antilock brakes (ABS), traction control, fourwheel drive, rollover bars, 

pretensioners, and upgraded rear fuel 

system integrity. The petitioner also 

stated that the vehicle has been 

subjected to a frontal pole test at 35 mph 

and a roof crush resistance test at 2.5 

times the mass of the vehicle. 

Furthermore, the company stated that 

the Murcielago has been equipped with 

an air bag on-off switch. 

In terms of safety impact, 

Lamborghini argued that it intends to 

produce only 380 Murcielago vehicles 

over three years and that these vehicles 

are not normally used for daily 

transportation, have substantially lower 

than average annual usage, and typically 

are not used to transport children. The 

company added that its search of 

NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS) database from 1995–

2003 and the 2004 Annual Report File 9

(a period covering both the Murcielago 

and its predecessor vehicle (the Diablo)) 

showed only one crash involving a 

Lamborghini, in which the adult female 

occupant survived. According to 

Lamborghini, there are no known 

instances of injury or death to infants, 

children, or other occupants caused by 

air bags, the problem giving rise to the 

advanced air bag rule. The company 

further argued that given its low sales 

volume, it would be aware of such 

fatalities and injuries if they were 

occurring. Accordingly, the petitioner 

argued that its requested exemption for 

these vehicles would have a negligible 

effect on safety. 

In addition, Lamborghini argued that 

the continued weakening of the U.S. 

dollar vis-a`-vis the euro, when 

combined with competitive pressure to 

avoid significant vehicle price increases 

in the U.S. market, exacerbates the 

economic hardship problems 

confronting the company. 

The second comment was submitted 

by Mr. Steven Blodgett, an individual.10

(We note that Mr. Blodgett’s comments 

applied equally to all five manufacturerpetitioners. Accordingly, this 

commenter’s arguments will be set forth 

immediately below, but they will not be 

repeated in subsequent discussions 

involving the other four manufacturers.) 

In part, Mr. Blodgett requested a 30-day 

extension of the 15-day comment 

period, arguing that the agency has 

arbitrarily shortened the comment 

period. The commenter argued that his 

ability to seek an extension of the 

comment period has been compromised 

by the requirement under 49 CFR 553.19 

that such requests must be received not 

later than 15 days before the time stated 

in the notice. He stated that additional 

time is required to allow for proper 

research in order to verify the 

statements of the manufacturers, as well 

as their accompanying financial data. 

Furthermore, he argued that a 60-day 

comment period is required under 5 

CFR 1320.8(d). 

Mr. Blodgett also requested that the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and/or a separate independent 

contractor be used to evaluate the 

financial data submitted by the five 

petitioning manufacturers. The 

commenter also faulted the 

manufacturers for petitioning the agency 

not long before the September 1, 2006 

compliance date for the advanced air 

bag requirements. He further suggested 

that it is presumptuous for these 

manufacturers to continue producing 

vehicles prior to receiving a decision on 

their applications for temporary 

exemption, something which should be 

taken into account when considering 

the manufacturers’ petitions. 

Mr. Blodgett objected to the lack of 

supporting documentation from air bag 

suppliers to verify that the requirements 

for which the vehicle manufacturers 

seek an exemption cannot be met. The 

commenter expressed his opinion that 

the government should not be 

subsidizing uncompetitive businesses 

through the temporary exemption 

process and that granting exemptions 

unfairly penalizes other manufacturers 

who concomitantly lose market share. 

Mr. Blodgett also objected to the 

agency’s decision to combine the five 

applications for temporary exemption 

into a single Federal Register notice, 

rather than publishing a separate notice 

for each petitioner. The commenter 

argued that this is confusing and is not 

consistent with the requirements of 49 

U.S.C. 30113(b)(2). 

The third comment was submitted by 

the COSVAM. As discussed previously, 

COSVAM raised the issue of whether 

certain of the petitioners (Bugatti, 

Lamborghini, Maserati) are eligible for 

temporary exemptions under part 555, 

in light of their financial relationships 

to larger parent companies which are 

also vehicle manufacturers (see 

Eligibility section above for details and 

the agency’s decision on that issue). 

Agency Decision on Lamborghini 

Petition. We are granting the 

Lamborghini petition to be exempted 

from portions of the advanced air bag 

regulation required by S14.2 

(specifically S14.5.2, S15, S17, S19, S21, 

S23, and S25). The exemption does not 

extend to the provision requiring a 

belted 50th percentile male barrier 

impact test (S14.5.1(a)). In addition to 

certifying compliance with S14.5.1(a), 

Lamborghini must continue to certify to 

the unbelted 50th percentile male 

barrier impact test in force prior to 

September 1, 2006 (S5.1.2(a)). We note 

that the unbelted sled test in S13 is an 

acceptable option for that requirement. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52855 

11See page 23 of Lamborghini’s petition and page 

2 of Lamborghini’s comments. 

The agency’s rationale for this decision 

is as follows. 

The advanced air bag requirements 

present a unique challenge because they 

would require Lamborghini to 

completely redesign its vehicles, in 

order to overcome the engineering 

limitations based upon the basic 

configuration of the Murcielago. While 

the petitioner was aware of the new 

requirements for some time, its business 

plans changed, and it was subsequently 

determined that the Murcielago’s 

production run would need to be 

extended beyond 2006, thereby raising 

the problem of compliance with the 

advanced air bag requirements. 

Lamborghini explained the main 

engineering challenges precluding 

incorporation of advanced air bags into 

the Murcielago at this time, as follows. 

First, cockpit space limitations imposed 

by the windshield and passenger 

compartment height currently prevent 

the fitting of the six-year-old dummies 

into the required out-of-position test 

locations, thereby necessitating a 

customized procedure. Second, the 

location of the air conditioning system 

precludes installation of the passenger 

air bag module in the top of the 

instrument panel, and the manufacturer 

was unable to identify an alternate 

location for the air bag module. Third, 

it was not possible to adapt 

Lamborghini’s supplier’s bladder 

technology based upon occupant 

sensors into the Murcielago’s unique 

seating systems. Fourth, another 

supplier’s sensor system was unable to 

distinguish between the six-year-old 

and 5th-percentile female dummies in 

the Murcielago environment. Fifth, the 

manufacturer was confronted with 

cockpit space limitations which 

precluded placement of occupant 

sensors in other areas of the seat 

structure, and it was unable to find 

suppliers willing to customize their 

systems to Lamborghini’s specifications. 

Sixth, the top-mounted passenger air 

bag system designed for the new 

Lamborghini Gallardo (which will meet 

the advanced air bag requirements) 

cannot be retrofitted into the 

Murcielago. 

For a high-speed performance vehicle 

such as the Murcielago, aerodynamics 

are a major design consideration, so 

such vehicles tend to sit very close to 

the ground and have minimal cockpit 

space as essential features of their basic 

design. Any significant increase in 

cockpit dimensions (as might be 

required to meet the advanced air bag 

requirements) would necessitate a total 

vehicle makeover. Lamborghini has 

made clear that such a prospect would 

pose a unique challenge to the 

company, due to the high cost of 

development and its extremely small 

sales volumes. 

Based upon the information provided 

by the petitioner, we understand that 

Lamborghini made good faith efforts to 

bring the Murcielago into compliance 

with the applicable requirements until 

such time as it became apparent that 

there was no practicable way to do so. 

No viable alternatives remain. The 

petitioner is unable to design a new 

vehicle by the time the new advanced 

air bag requirements go into effect on 

September 1, 2006. 

After review of the income statements 

provided by the petitioner, the agency 

notes that the company has faced 

ongoing financial difficulties, having 

lost over $180 million (145 million 

euros) over the period from 2001–2004. 

If the petitioner is forced to discontinue 

selling the current model in the U.S. 

market, the resulting loss of sales would 

cause substantial economic hardship 

within the meaning of the statute, 

potentially amounting to the difference 

between profitability and ongoing 

losses. According to Lamborghini, 

absent the exemption, production of the 

Murcielago would cease in September 

2006, because sales in the rest of the 

world would be insufficient to justify 

continued production (as the U.S. 

accounts for 35–40 percent of the 

market for the Murcielago). However, 

Lamborghini’s problems would be 

compounded without its requested 

temporary exemption, because it needs 

the revenue from sales of the Murcielago 

over the next three years to finance 

development of a fully compliant 

vehicle for delivery to the U.S. market 

in September 2009. Granting the 

exemption will allow Lamborghini to 

earn the resources necessary to bridge 

the gap in terms of development of a 

successor vehicle for the Murcielago 

that meets all U.S. requirements. 

While some of the information 

submitted by Lamborghini has been 

granted confidential treatment and is 

not detailed in this document, the 

petitioner made a comprehensive 

showing of its good faith efforts to 

comply with the requirements of S14.2 

of FMVSS No. 208, and detailed 

engineering and financial information 

demonstrating that failure to obtain the 

exemption would cause substantial 

economic hardship. Specifically, the 

petitioner provided the following: 

1. Chronological analysis of 

Lamborghini’s efforts to comply, 

showing the relationship to the 

rulemaking history of the advanced air 

bag requirements. 

2. Itemized costs of each component 

that would have to be modified in order 

to achieve compliance. 

3. Discussion of alternative means of 

compliance and reasons for rejecting 

these alternatives. 

4. List of air bag suppliers that were 

approached in hopes of procuring 

necessary components. 

5. Explanations as to why components 

from newer, compliant vehicle lines 

could not be borrowed. 

6. Corporate income statements and 

balance sheets for the past three years, 

and projected income statements and 

balance sheets if the petition is denied. 

We note that Lamborghini is a wellestablished company with a small, but 

not insignificant U.S. presence. We 

believe that the reduction of sales 

revenue resulting from a denial of the 

company’s requested temporary 

exemption would have a negative 

impact not only on Lamborghini’s 

financial circumstances, but it would 

also negatively affect U.S. employment. 

Specifically, reduction in sales would 

also affect Lamborghini dealers, repair 

specialists, and several small service 

providers that transport Lamborghini 

vehicles from the port of entry to the 

rest of the United States. Traditionally, 

the agency has concluded that the 

public interest is served in affording 

continued employment to the 

petitioner’s U.S. work force. 

Furthermore, as discussed in previous 

decisions on temporary exemption 

applications, the agency believes that 

the public interest is served by affording 

consumers a wider variety of motor 

vehicle choices. 

We also note that the Murcielago 

features several advanced ‘‘active’’

safety features. These features are listed 

in the petitioner’s application.11 While 

the availability of these features is not 

critical to our decision, it is a factor in 

considering whether the exemption is in 

the public interest. 

We believe that this exemption will 

have negligible impact on motor vehicle 

safety because of the limited number of 

vehicles affected (not more than 380 for 

the duration of the exemption), and 

because Lamborghini vehicles are not 

typically used for daily transportation. 

Their yearly usage is substantially lower 

compared to vehicles used for everyday 

transportation. 

In addition, Lamborghini has 

voluntarily included an air bag on-off 

switch for passenger air bag suppression 

for the protection of children being 

transported in the right front seating 

position. This will enable the passenger 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
52856 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

12For fatalities, the agency has a high level of 

confidence that we would know if one of the 

petitioners’ vehicles had been involved in a fatal 

crash due to reporting in FARS. However, the 

agency’s ability to track injuries in this context is 

more limited, primarily because NASS CDS 

operates differently. NASS CDS is not a census of 

all vehicle-related injuries, but instead it is a 

statistical sample which is unlikely to randomly 

capture air bag-related fatalities. Although the 

agency’s Special Crash Investigations office 

searches for air bag-related deaths and injuries, 

there may be lesser injuries that go unreported. This 

observation applies to all five petitions covered by 

the notice. 

13We note further that Mr. Blodgett asserted that, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1320.8(d), a 60-day comment 

period is required on the notice of receipt of an 

application for temporary exemption. However, 5 

CFR part 1320, Controlling Paperwork Burdens on 

the Public, implements the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). Those provisions deal with specified 

types of collections of information from the public 

(which require OMB approval and clearance), and 

the 60-day comment period referenced above is 

related to such collections of information. 

Furthermore, in defining the term ‘‘information,’’ 5 

CFR 1320.3(h)(4) states that that term does not 

generally include: 

Factors or opinions submitted in response to 

general solicitation of comments from the public, 

published in the Federal Register or other 

publications, regardless of the form or format 

thereof, provided that no person is required to 

supply specific information pertaining to the 

commenter, other than that necessary for selfidentification, as a condition of the agency’s full 

consideration of the comment. 

Thus, the provision pointed to by the commenter 

is not relevant in the present case. 

air bag to be manually turned off when 

a child is present, which supports our 

findings that this exemption would have 

a negligible impact on motor vehicle 

safety. 

Furthermore, the agency examined 

the FARS (1995–2004) and the National 

Automotive Sampling System 

Crashworthiness Data System (NASS 

CDS) (1995–2005) for information on 

the vehicle in question.12 These data 

indicate that over that period, there 

were no NASS CDS cases for the 

Murcielago and one FARS case for the 

Murcielago predecessor (injured female 

passenger). Thus, there were no 

children or small women involved in 

crashes of the later Lamborghini 

Murcielago included in these databases. 

We note that, as explained below, 

prospective purchasers will be notified 

that the vehicle is exempted from the 

specified advanced air bag requirements 

of Standard No. 208. Under § 555.9(b), 

a manufacturer of an exempted 

passenger car must affix securely to the 

windshield or side window of each 

exempted vehicle a label containing a 

statement that the vehicle conforms to 

all applicable Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards in effect on the date of 

manufacture ‘‘except for Standard Nos. 

[listing the standards by number and 

title for which an exemption has been 

granted] exempted pursuant to NHTSA 

Exemption No. lll.’’ This label 

notifies prospective purchasers about 

the exemption and its subject. Under 

§ 555.9(c), this information must also be 

included on the vehicle’s certification 

label. 

The text of § 555.9 does not expressly 

indicate how the required statement on 

the two labels should read in situations 

where an exemption covers part but not 

all of a Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard. In this case, we believe that a 

statement that the vehicle has been 

exempted from Standard No. 208 

generally, without an indication that the 

exemption is limited to the specified 

advanced air bag provisions, could be 

misleading. A consumer might 

incorrectly believe that the vehicle has 

been exempted from all of Standard No. 

208’s requirements. Moreover, we 

believe that the addition of a reference 

to such provisions by number without 

an indication of its subject matter would 

be of little use to consumers, since they 

would not know the subject of those 

specific provisions. For these reasons, 

we believe the two labels should read in 

relevant part, ‘‘except for S14.5.2, S15, 

S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (Advanced 

Air Bag Requirements) of Standard No. 

208, Occupant Crash Protection, 

exempted pursuant to * * *.’’ We note 

that the phrase ‘‘Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements’’ is an abbreviated form of 

the title of S14 of Standard No. 208. We 

believe it is reasonable to interpret 

§ 555.9 as requiring this language. 

Although our response to the 

supplementary comments provided by 

the petitioner is reflected above, we 

would offer the following response to 

the other public comments received on 

the Lamborghini petition. 

We have decided not to grant Mr. 

Blodgett’s request for extension of time 

to comment on the five applications 

contained in our July 12, 2006 Federal 

Register notice announcing receipt of 

those applications. First, the commenter 

pointed to requirements under part 553, 

Rulemaking Procedures (specifically 

paragraph 553.19, Petitions for 

extension of time to comment), which 

states that persons wishing to request 

extension of a comment period must do 

so in writing 15 days prior to expiration 

of the time stated in the notice. 

However, the notice of receipt in 

question was issued under part 555, 

Temporary Exemption From Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, 

which does not contain any time 

limitations either for the public 

comment period or related requests for 

extension of time. In the present case, 

the agency decided to shorten the length 

of the comment period to 15 days, in 

light of the rapidly approaching 

deadline for small volume manufacturer 

compliance with the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208. That 

determination reflected our careful 

balancing of the need to provide an 

adequate opportunity for public 

comment and the need to issue a 

decision prior to the standard’s 

compliance deadline. Contrary to what 

Mr. Blodgett’s comment suggests, his 

request for an extension of the comment 

period was received and considered by 

the agency, although we decided that it 

would not be in the public interest to 

grant that request.13

We likewise do not agree with Mr. 

Blodgett that it is necessary to submit 

the manufacturers’ financial data to 

OMB or an independent contractor for 

evaluation. NHTSA routinely evaluates 

such information in making its 

determinations, as it has done with 

prior requests for temporary exemption 

under part 555. Furthermore, we do not 

agree with Mr. Blodgett’s contention 

that negative inferences should be 

drawn from the timing of 

manufacturers’ submission of their part 

555 applications or their continuation of 

manufacturing activities pending the 

agency’s decision. The timing of the 

submission of a manufacturer’s 

application may be predicated upon 

good faith efforts to achieve compliance 

with our safety standards, although in 

the end, those efforts may prove 

unsuccessful. Likewise, a company’s 

business decision to continue 

production of vehicles subject to an 

application for temporary exemption 

has no bearing on the agency’s decision 

to grant or deny an application, 

particularly since it is conceivable that 

such vehicles could be sold in non-U.S. 

markets. 

We do not believe that vehicle 

manufacturers seeking an exemption 

should be required to prove that there 

are no advanced air bag systems 

available which would allow their 

vehicles to comply with FMVSS No. 

208, because in essence, that would 

require the companies to prove a 

negative. Instead, the companies must 

demonstrate that they made good faith 

efforts to comply with the standard and 

show how they plan to achieve 

compliance in the future. By statute, 

manufacturers are entitled to apply for 

a temporary exemption under part 555, 

provided that they meet all relevant 

requirements. 

We likewise do not agree with Mr. 

Blodgett’s suggestion that the agency 

improperly combined the present five 

part 555 applications in one Federal 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52857 

Register notice or that this somehow 

increased burdens on commenters. The 

notice of receipt clearly set forth in its 

title the companies seeking exemptions 

and discussed each of the applicants 

separately. In light of the similarity of 

the issues to be addressed, we believe 

that such consolidation was 

appropriate. 

As noted previously, the comments of 

COSVAM were addressed under the 

discussion of Eligibility above. 

In sum, the agency concludes that 

Lamborghini has demonstrated good 

faith effort to bring the Murcielago into 

compliance with the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208, and 

has also demonstrated the requisite 

financial hardship. Further, we find the 

exemption to be in the public interest. 

In consideration of the foregoing, we 

conclude that compliance with the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection, would cause substantial 

economic hardship to a manufacturer 

that has tried in good faith to comply 

with the standard. We further conclude 

that granting of an exemption would be 

in the public interest and consistent 

with the objectives of traffic safety. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(3)(B)(i), Lamborghini 

Murcielago is granted NHTSA 

Temporary Exemption No. EX 06–2, 

from S14.5.2, S15, S17, S19, S23, and 

S25 of 49 CFR 571.208. The exemption 

is effective from September 1, 2006 to 

August 31, 2009. 

IV. Bugatti 

Background. Bugatti was a 

manufacturer of high performance 

motor vehicles from 1909 until the 

outbreak of World War II. In the past 

two decades, several attempts were 

made to revive the marquee. Finally, 

under the new ownership in 1998, the 

petitioner began designing a new 

vehicle called the Veyron 16.4 (Veyron). 

Only 300 vehicles are to be made (about 

half of which are expected to be 

imported to the U.S.), each costing in 

excess of $1,000,000. Bugatti originally 

planned to begin selling the vehicle in 

September of 2003 and to end 

production before the advanced air bag 

requirements went into effect. However, 

significant development issues delayed 

the start of production until September 

of 2005. Once this shift in the 

production schedule became apparent, 

the petitioner argues that it tried in good 

faith but could not bring the vehicle into 

compliance with the advanced air bag 

requirements, and it would incur 

substantial economic hardship if it 

cannot sell approximately 100 vehicles 

in the U.S. after September 1, 2006. 

Eligibility. Bugatti just began 

producing vehicles and its total 

production has not reached 100. 

However, in 1998, Bugatti was acquired 

by Volkswagen AG (VW), a large motor 

vehicle manufacturer. According to 

Bugatti, the Veyron 16.4 does not 

resemble any vehicle built or sold by 

any other VW company. The petitioner 

also states that the Veyron 16.4 was 

engineered entirely by Bugatti, and that 

it will similarly be manufactured and 

marketed solely by Bugatti. Bugatti 

stated that almost all parts for its vehicle 

are provided by suppliers that do not 

provide any parts to any other VW 

companies. In discussing its eligibility 

for hardship relief, Bugatti asserts that 

its relationship with VW is ‘‘arm’slength.’’ Bugatti operates independently, 

and services provided by Bugatti 

affiliates were paid for by Bugatti. 

In making our determination 

regarding eligibility, we note that the 

public comment from COSVAM raised 

the issue of whether certain of the 

petitioners (Bugatti, Lamborghini, 

Maserati) are eligible for temporary 

exemptions under part 555, in light of 

their financial relationships to larger 

parent companies which are also 

vehicle manufacturers. Specifically, 

COSVAM argued that Bugatti is owned 

by VW, a vehicle manufacturer whose 

sales in the U.S. market exceeds the 

upper limits for classification as a small 

volume manufacturer. COSVAM further 

questioned why an otherwise advanced 

performance vehicle such as the Bugatti 

Veyron 16.4 would be unable to comply 

with the requirements of FMVSS No. 

208, particularly when other vehicles 

within its ‘‘corporate family’’ are or will 

be in compliance. Accordingly, the 

commenter argued that Bugatti should 

be considered a brand produced by 

major vehicle manufacturer VW, thereby 

making the petitioner ineligible for a 

temporary exemption under part 555 

based upon higher production values. 

The agency examined the relationship 

between Bugatti and VW. We have 

concluded that Bugatti is eligible to 

apply for a temporary exemption based 

on the following factors. First, there is 

no similarity of design between the cars 

produced by Bugatti and cars produced 

by VW. Second, Bugatti operated 

independently from VW in designing 

and developing the Veyron 16.4. Third, 

almost all of the parts used in the 

Veyron production are obtained from 

suppliers that do not supply parts to 

VW. In addition, when Bugatti has used 

test tracks or other facilities of VW in 

the course of developing the Veyron, it 

has reimbursed Volkswagen AG for the 

costs of those facilities on an ‘‘armslength’’ basis. Accordingly, NHTSA 

concludes that VW is not a 

manufacturer of Bugatti vehicles by 

virtue of being a sponsor. 

Requested exemptions. Bugatti stated 

its intention to certify compliance of the 

Veyron model, produced on and after 

September 1, 2006 for sale in the United 

States, with rigid barrier belted and 

unbelted test requirements using the 

50th percentile adult male test dummy 

(S14.5.1 and S14.5.2), the rigid barrier 

test requirements using the 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy 

(belted and unbelted, S15), and the 

offset deformable barrier test 

requirement using the 5th percentile 

adult female test dummy (S17). 

As for the other advanced air bag 

requirements, Bugatti states that it does 

not know whether the Veyron will be 

compliant as it has not had the financial 

ability to conduct the necessary 

development and testing. 

Bugatti is requesting an exemption 

from the requirements to provide 

protection for infants and children (S19, 

S21, and S23) and the requirement 

using an out-of-position 5th percentile 

adult female test dummy at the driver 

position (S25). 

Bugatti is requesting the above 

exemption for the Veyron 16.4 for the 

period from September 1, 2006 to 

September 1, 2008. 

Economic hardship. Publicly 

available information and also the 

financial documents submitted to 

NHTSA by the petitioner indicate that 

the Veyron project will result in 

financial losses whether or not Bugatti 

obtains a temporary exemption. At the 

time of the application, Bugatti had 

spent over $360 million on the Veyron 

project—the company’s only model—

with little or no return on its 

investment. If the exemption is granted, 

Bugatti projects a net loss of $3.7 

million. If the exemption is denied, 

Bugatti projects a net loss of $22.5 

million. Further, denial of the petition 

would likely preclude the petitioner 

from developing new, fully compliant 

vehicles. The petitioner argues that a 

denial of this petition could ultimately 

put Bugatti out of business. 

Good faith efforts to comply. As stated 

above, Bugatti originally anticipated 

that all of the Veyrons destined for the 

U.S. market would be manufactured 

prior to September 1, 2006. As such, the 

company did not believe the vehicles 

would need to be equipped with 

advanced air bag systems. However, due 

to delays in completing the design and 

engineering of the vehicle, Bugatti did 

not begin production of the Veyron until 

the fall of 2005, nearly two years after 

the anticipated initial start date. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
52858 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

To install an advanced air bag system 

on the Veyron, modifications would be 

required to the steering wheel, the seats, 

the air bag system, the safety belts, the 

knee bolsters, and the instrument panel. 

Bugatti sought proposals from several 

potential suppliers for the development 

of an advanced air bag system for the 

Veyron, but received only one proposal. 

According to the petitioner, the 

proposal showed that the development 

and implementation costs for such a 

system were far beyond its current 

financial capabilities, particularly when 

considered in terms of amortizing those 

costs over a population of just 100 

vehicles. The proposal indicated that 

total development, testing, and 

implementation of an advanced air bag 

system for the Veyron would cost over 

$12 million. More important, 

development would take at least 24 

months, which would have required 

Bugatti to completely shut down its 

operations. The petitioner argued this 

scenario is not feasible for a 

manufacturer intending to produce a 

total of 300 vehicles. For further details, 

see the petition. 

Bugatti argues that an exemption 

would be in the public interest. The 

petitioner put forth several arguments in 

favor of a finding that the requested 

exemption is consistent with the public 

interest. Specifically, Bugatti asserted 

that there is consumer demand in the 

U.S. for the Veyron, and granting this 

application will allow the demand to be 

met. Bugatti also states that granting the 

exemption will ‘‘have negligible impact 

on motor vehicle safety because of the 

limited number of vehicles sold and 

because each vehicle is likely to travel 

on the public roads only infrequently.’’

Further, Bugatti states that it is 

extremely unlikely that young children 

would often be passengers in this 

vehicle, and, therefore, permitting a 

vehicle to be sold without an air bag 

designed to protect small children is 

unlikely to have any adverse impact on 

safety. Finally, Bugatti indicates that the 

Veyron, which is equipped with 

standard air bags, also incorporates 

many safety features that are not 

required by the FMVSSs, including antilock brakes, electronic stability control, 

all-wheel drive, run-flat tires, a tire 

pressure monitoring system (installed 

ahead of the required date for small 

volume manufacturers under FMVSS 

No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring 

Systems), and a dynamic rear spoiler 

that acts as a ‘‘parachute brake’’ during 

high speed emergency braking. 

Summary of Public Comments. The 

agency received two comments on the 

Bugatti petition for a temporary 

exemption. As noted above, the first 

comment was submitted by Mr. Steven 

Blodgett (see the summary of public 

comments under Lamborghini for a 

complete discussion of this comment). 

Specific to Bugatti, Mr. Blodgett 

requested the OMB and/or a separate 

independent contractor be used to 

evaluate the company’s financial data. 

The commenter also objected to the lack 

of supporting documentation from air 

bag suppliers to verify that the 

requirements for which the vehicle 

manufacturer seeks an exemption 

cannot be met. As further factors for 

consideration by the agency in 

reviewing the company’s temporary 

exemption request, Mr. Blodgett 

highlighted what he perceived to be the 

manufacturer’s delay in submitting a 

part 555 petition from the advanced air 

bag requirements and its presumed 

continuation of vehicle production prior 

to receiving the agency’s decision. 

The second comment was submitted 

by the COSVAM. As discussed 

previously, COSVAM raised the issue of 

whether certain of the petitioners 

(Bugatti, Lamborghini, Maserati) are 

eligible for temporary exemptions under 

part 555, in light of their financial 

relationships to larger parent companies 

which are also vehicle manufacturers 

(see Eligibility section above for details 

and the agency’s decision on that issue). 

Agency Decision on Bugatti Petition. 

We are granting the Bugatti petition to 

be exempted from portions of the 

advanced air bag regulation required by 

S14.2 (specifically S19, S21, S23, and 

S25). The extent of the exemption is 

limited to those provision requiring 

testing with child dummies (S19, S21 

and S23) and the 5th percentile female 

dummy out-of-position testing (S25). 

Bugatti must certify to 50th percentile 

male barrier testing (S14.5.1 and 

S14.5.2), 5th percentile female barrier 

testing (S15) and 5th percentile female 

offset frontal testing (S17). The agency’s 

rationale for this decision is as follows. 

The advanced air bag requirements 

present a unique challenge because they 

would require Bugatti to undertake a 

major redesign of its vehicles. 

Specifically, incorporation of the 

advanced air bags would require 

significant modifications to the Veyron’s 

steering wheel, seats, air bag system, 

safety belts, knee bolsters, and 

instrument panel. While the petitioner 

was aware of the new requirements for 

some time, manufacturing delays 

required the Veyron 16.4’s production 

run to extend beyond 2006, thereby 

raising the problem of compliance with 

the advanced air bag requirements. 

Bugatti has made clear that such a 

prospect would pose a unique challenge 

to the company, due to the high cost of 

development and its extremely small 

sales volumes. In addition, in light of 

the fact that it projects sales of only 100 

vehicles per year, the company also 

faced difficulties in finding a supplier of 

advanced restraint systems, because 

such suppliers were focused on large 

volume manufacturers. 

Based upon the information provided 

by the petitioner, we understand that 

Bugatti made good faith efforts to try to 

bring the Veyron 16.4 into compliance 

with the applicable requirements until 

such time as it became apparent that 

there was no practicable way to do so. 

No viable alternatives remain. The 

petitioner is unable to redesign its 

vehicle by the time the new advanced 

air bag requirements go into effect on 

September 1, 2006. 

After review of the income statements 

provided by the petitioner, the agency 

notes that the company has faced 

ongoing financial difficulties with its 

manufacturing operations. Even with a 

temporary exemption, Bugatti projects a 

net loss of over $3 million for 2006–

2009, and without an exemption, that 

figure would grow to a loss of 

approximately $23 million. If the 

petitioner is forced to discontinue 

selling its current and only model in the 

U.S. market, the resulting loss of sales 

would cause substantial economic 

hardship within the meaning of the 

statute, potentially driving the company 

out of business. Bugatti’s problems 

would be compounded without its 

requested temporary exemption, 

because it needs the revenue from sales 

of the Veyron 16.4 over the next two 

years to finance development of a fully 

compliant successor vehicle for delivery 

to the U.S. market. Granting the 

exemption will allow Bugatti to earn the 

resources necessary to bridge the gap in 

terms of development of a successor 

vehicle for the Veyron 16.4 that meets 

all U.S. requirements. 

While some of the information 

submitted by Bugatti has been granted 

confidential treatment and is not 

detailed in this document, the petitioner 

made a comprehensive showing of its 

good faith efforts to comply with the 

requirements of S14.2 of FMVSS No. 

208, and detailed engineering and 

financial information demonstrating 

that failure to obtain the exemption 

would cause substantial economic 

hardship. Specifically, the petitioner 

provided the following: 

1. Chronological analysis of Bugatti’s 

efforts to comply, showing the 

relationship to the rulemaking history of 

the advanced air bag requirements. 

2. Itemized costs of each component 

that would have to be modified in order 

to achieve compliance. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52859 

14See page 9 of Bugatti’s petition. 

15See 64 FR 61379 (Nov. 10, 1999)(Docket No. 

NHTSA–1999–6092); 68 FR 10066 (March 3, 

2003)(Docket No. NHTSA–2002–13956); 69 FR 5658 

(Feb. 5, 2004)(Docket No. NHTSA–2003–16341). 

3. Discussion of alternative means of 

compliance and reasons for rejecting 

these alternatives. 

4. List of air bag suppliers that were 

approached in hopes of procuring 

necessary components (including 

original equipment manufacturer (OEM) 

price-volume quotations). 

5. Explanations as to why components 

from newer, compliant vehicle lines 

could not be borrowed. 

6. Corporate income statements and 

balance sheets for the past three years, 

and projected income statements and 

balance sheets if the petition is denied. 

We note that, as discussed in previous 

decisions on temporary exemption 

applications, the agency believes that 

the public interest is served by affording 

consumers a wider variety of motor 

vehicle choices. 

We also note that the Veyron 16.4 

features several advanced ‘‘active’’

safety features. These features are listed 

in the petitioner’s application.14 While 

the availability of these features is not 

critical to our decision, it is a factor in 

considering whether the exemption is in 

the public interest. 

We believe that this exemption will 

have negligible impact on motor vehicle 

safety because of the limited number of 

vehicles affected (not more than 300 for 

the duration of the exemption), and 

because Bugatti vehicles are not 

typically used for daily transportation. 

Their yearly usage is also expected to be 

substantially lower compared to 

vehicles used for everyday 

transportation. 

We note that, as explained below, 

prospective purchasers will be notified 

that the vehicle is exempted from the 

specified advanced air bag requirements 

of Standard No. 208. Under § 555.9(b), 

a manufacturer of an exempted 

passenger car must affix securely to the 

windshield or side window of each 

exempted vehicle a label containing a 

statement that the vehicle conforms to 

all applicable Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards in effect on the date of 

manufacture ‘‘except for Standard Nos. 

[listing the standards by number and 

title for which an exemption has been 

granted] exempted pursuant to NHTSA 

Exemption No. lll .’’ This label 

notifies prospective purchasers about 

the exemption and its subject. Under 

§ 555.9(c), this information must also be 

included on the vehicle’s certification 

label. 

The text of § 555.9 does not expressly 

indicate how the required statement on 

the two labels should read in situations 

where an exemption covers part but not 

all of a Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard. In this case, we believe that a 

statement that the vehicle has been 

exempted from Standard No. 208 

generally, without an indication that the 

exemption is limited to the specified 

advanced air bag provisions, could be 

misleading. A consumer might 

incorrectly believe that the vehicle has 

been exempted from all of Standard No. 

208’s requirements. Moreover, we 

believe that the addition of a reference 

to such provisions by number without 

an indication of its subject matter would 

be of little use to consumers, since they 

would not know the subject of those 

specific provisions. For these reasons, 

we believe the two labels should read in 

relevant part, ‘‘except for S19, S21, S23, 

and S25 (Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements) of Standard No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection, exempted 

pursuant to * * *.’’ We note that the 

phrase ‘‘Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements’’ is an abbreviated form of 

the title of S14 of Standard No. 208. We 

believe it is reasonable to interpret 

§ 555.9 as requiring this language. 

In terms of our response to the 

comment submitted by Mr. Blodgett, we 

note that the issues raised in that 

comment (e.g., extension of the 

comment period, duration of the 

comment period, documentation) are 

identical for all five petitioners. 

Accordingly, please see our decision for 

Lamborghini (Section IV of this notice) 

for the agency’s response to this 

comment submission. As noted 

previously, the comments of COSVAM 

were addressed under the discussion of 

Eligibility above. 

In sum, the agency concludes that 

Bugatti has demonstrated good faith 

effort to bring the Veyron 16.4 into 

compliance with S14.2 of FMVSS No. 

208, and has also demonstrated the 

requisite financial hardship. Further, we 

find the exemption to be in the public 

interest. 

In consideration of the foregoing, we 

conclude that compliance with the 

requirements of the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection, would 

cause substantial economic hardship to 

a manufacturer that has tried in good 

faith to comply with the standard. We 

further conclude that granting of an 

exemption would be in the public 

interest and consistent with the 

objectives of traffic safety. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(3)(B)(i), the Bugatti Veyron 

16.4 is granted NHTSA Temporary 

Exemption No. EX 06–3, from S19, S21, 

S23, and S25 of 49 CFR 571.208. The 

exemption is effective from September 

1, 2006 to September 1, 2008. 

V. Lotus 

Background. Lotus, which was 

founded in 1955, produces small 

quantities of performance cars. The 

company has experienced significant 

financial difficulties for many years. In 

1998, Lotus began to develop a fully 

compliant vehicle for the U.S. market. 

However, due to lack of capital, the 

project was cancelled in 2001. The 

petitioner instead decided to sell a 

vehicle designed for the European 

market, the Lotus Elise, in the U.S. Prior 

to the U.S. launch of the Elise in 2004 

(currently Lotus’s only U.S. model), 

Lotus requested and received a part 555 

temporary exemption for the bumper 

standard and certain headlamp 

requirements (see 69 FR 5658 (Feb. 5, 

2004)). Over the last 18 months, the 

petitioner continued to experience 

economic hardship. Nevertheless, Lotus 

has worked on the development of 

compliant bumpers and headlamps at 

the cost of $27 million. Compliant 

headlamp systems have already been 

put into production, and compliant 

bumpers likewise will be put into 

production in advance of the expiration 

of Lotus’s existing temporary exemption 

on January 1, 2007. However, the 

petitioner has been unable to develop an 

advanced air bag system for the Elise 

(which has both a coupe and a 

convertible version). According to 

Lotus, sales of a fully compliant vehicle 

are slated to begin in 2008, but only if 

it is able to derive revenue from the U.S. 

sales of the Elise in the interim. 

Eligibility. Lotus produced 

approximately 5,600 vehicles in 2005. 

More specifically, the petitioner 

reported the following worldwide 

production and U.S. imports over the 

past few years: 

Group Lotus 

Plc 

Worldwide 

production U.S. imports 

2002 ............. 4810 cars ..... 120 cars. 

2003 ............. 2955 cars ..... 85 cars. 

2004 ............. 3710 cars ..... 1330 cars. 

2005 (estimate).5518 cars ..... 3390 cars. 

The issue of Lotus’s eligibility for a 

financial hardship exemption was 

previously addressed by NHTSA on 

three separate occasions.15 Although 

Lotus is owned by Proton Holdings 

Berhad, Lotus remains an operationally 

independent small volume 

manufacturer and the material facts 

regarding its ownership have not 

changed. Accordingly, NHTSA 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
52860 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

16Lotus also derives profits from engineering 

consulting for other small volume manufacturers. 

However, that business has declined. Fluctuations 

in the value of the dollar have also had a major 

effect on profits. 17 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25324–11. 

concludes that Lotus is eligible to apply 

for a hardship exemption. 

Requested exemptions. Lotus states 

that its United States vehicle production 

on and after September 1, 2006 will 

comply with the rigid barrier belted test 

requirement using the 50th percentile 

adult male test dummy (S14.5.1). The 

petitioner states that it previously 

determined the Elise’s compliance with 

rigid barrier unbelted test requirements 

using the 50th percentile adult male test 

dummy through the S13 sled test using 

a generic pulse rather than a full vehicle 

test. Therefore, Lotus states, it cannot at 

present say with certainty that the Elise 

would comply with the unbelted test 

requirement under S14.5.2, which is a 

20–25 mph rigid barrier test. 

As for the other advanced air bag 

requirements, Lotus states that it does 

not know whether the Elise would be 

compliant as Lotus has not had the 

financial ability to conduct the 

necessary research and development. 

As such, Lotus is requesting an 

exemption for the Elise from the rigid 

barrier unbelted test requirement with 

the 50th percentile adult male test 

dummy (S14.5.2), the rigid barrier test 

requirement using the 5th percentile 

adult female test dummy (belted and 

unbelted, S15), the offset deformable 

barrier test requirement using the 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy 

(S17), the requirements to provide 

protection for infants and children (S19, 

S21, and S23) and the requirement 

using an out-of-position 5th percentile 

adult female test dummy at the driver 

position (S25). 

Lotus is requesting the above 

exemption for the Elise for the period 

from September 1, 2006 to August 31, 

2009. 

Economic Hardship. Lotus has 

suffered substantial economic hardship 

for many years. In the past five years, its 

losses have totaled almost $125 million. 

When Lotus successfully petitioned 

NHTSA for an exemption in 2004, it 

forecasted profits for fiscal years 2004 

and 2005. However, these profits never 

materialized, and Lotus instead lost $13 

million in 2004 and approximately $5 

million in 2005.16

Lotus asserts that if the exemption is 

not granted, the company will be forced 

out of the U.S. market starting in 

September 2006 until sometime in 2008 

for lack of any product to sell. Without 

an exemption, Lotus predicts losses 

totaling over $100 million in the next 

three years. Lotus argues that the cash 

required for Lotus to maintain a 

presence in the U.S. and to compensate 

its dealers for no product would not be 

sustainable. Further, there would not be 

funds to develop a new fully compliant 

vehicle. In short, the company could be 

forced entirely out of business. 

Good faith efforts to comply. Lotus 

asserts that it has tried in good faith to 

comply with the advanced air bag 

requirements. The development work 

for advanced air bags did not begin until 

June 2003 because Lotus was not 

originally planning on selling the Elise 

in the U.S. Instead, as noted above, a 

new fully compliant vehicle was 

intended to be sold in the U.S., but that 

project was cancelled. 

In seeking an advanced air bag system 

for the Elise, Lotus encountered a 

number of difficulties and has been 

unable to acquire an ‘‘off-the-shelf’’

advanced air bag system. First, many 

existing advanced air bag designs, 

technical specifications, and tooling are 

the intellectual property of the original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM) and not 

the supplier. Lotus experienced 

reluctance to allow the transfer of this 

intellectual property for its use. Second, 

the passenger air bag size, inflator 

pressure, venting, and deployment angle 

in those pre-existing air bag systems 

have been specifically designed for the 

original OEM vehicle crash pulse and 

interior geometry. Therefore, to source a 

passenger air bag requires reverse 

engineering, suiting the vehicle’s 

interior package, and modifying the 

vehicle crash pulse to suit the OEM air 

bag. Third, the suppression option for 

compliance was not possible due to the 

lack of available sensor technology. 

Instead, to pursue the low risk 

deployment option, Lotus would need a 

top mounted passenger air bag. 

However, to package the top mounted 

passenger air bag in the Elise would 

require a complete redesign of a major 

structural part of the extruded 

aluminum chassis. At the location 

where the passenger air bag would need 

to be situated, there is a major structural 

cross beam that is bonded into the 

chassis. New tooling for the instrument 

panel would also be required, along 

with a new air bag cover. The air bag 

cover would require a new unique 

design to overcome the issues of out-ofposition, small occupant air bag 

deployments. Fourth, advanced air bag 

occupant classification systems require 

a compliant seat frame base. The Lotus 

Elise has a rigid shell seat with only a 

minimum level of foam; therefore, 

another technical solution would be 

required, such as seat frame weight 

sensors. Currently, this solution is 

under development by suppliers but is 

not now available as a production 

solution. 

Lotus argues that an exemption would 

be in the public interest. First, Lotus 

asserts that the current Elise standard 

air bag system does not pose a safety 

risk. Lotus indicates that it knows of no 

injuries or deaths to infants, children, or 

other occupants caused by the Elise’s 

current standard air bag system. Lotus 

further notes that the passenger seat is 

fixed in its rearmost position, thereby 

reducing air bag risks to children. 

Second, Lotus argues that denial of 

the petition would result in loss of jobs 

within Lotus and by independent 

dealers and repair specialists in the U.S. 

because the petitioner would be forced 

to abandon the U.S. market, which 

could also compromise the flow of 

proper parts and service to existing 

Lotus owners. Lotus also argued that 

consumer choice would be adversely 

affected. 

Summary of Public Comments. The 

agency received two comments on the 

Lotus petition for a temporary 

exemption. The first comment was 

submitted by Lotus itself.17 In its 

comment, the company stated that its 

situation is similar to Ferrari’s request 

for a temporary exemption from the 

advanced air bag provisions of FMVSS 

No. 208, which the agency granted in a 

notice published in the Federal Register 

on May 22, 2006 (71 FR 29389) (Docket 

No. NHTSA–2005–23093). Specifically, 

Lotus presented the following 

arguments in support of its petition. 

Like Ferarri, Lotus stated that it 

product cycles must last longer than the 

industry average due to the high cost of 

development and extremely small sales 

volumes. Lotus stated that advanced air 

bags were not anticipated when the 

Elise’s vehicle platform was designed 

(in conjunction with its predecessor 

vehicle (the Elan)), and when the 

advanced air bag requirements were 

established, the company originally 

planned to introduce advanced air bag 

in the successor vehicle, the Lotus 

Esprit, and then to use the same 

technology for its Elise model. However, 

the company stated that due to 

unforeseen circumstances, the Esprit 

successor vehicle was delayed. Lotus 

stated that once this situation became 

clear, the company immediately tried to 

shift its advanced air bag program’s 

focus to the Elise, with subsequent 

introduction into the Esprit successor. 

However, Lotus argued that despite its 

good faith efforts, it is not practicable to 

comply with the advanced air bag 

requirements in time to meet the 

September 1, 2006 deadline. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52861 

Lotus argued that it is an independent 

manufacturer eligible for an exemption 

under 49 CFR part 555, despite the fact 

that the company is owned by Proton 

Holdings Berhad. The petitioner argued 

that its relationship to its parent 

company is similar to that of Ferarri and 

its parent company (Fiat). Lotus also 

noted that denial of its exemption 

request would have a negative 

employment impact on both its U.S. 

subsidiary and its U.S. dealerships. 

In terms of safety impact, Lotus 

argued that the Elise would be equipped 

with standard air bags and that these 

vehicles are not typically used for daily 

transportation, have substantially lower 

than average annual usage, and typically 

are not used to transport children. 

Accordingly, the petitioner argued that 

its requested exemption for these 

vehicles would have a negligible effect 

on safety. The company added that its 

search of NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS) database from 

1995–2003 and 2004 Annual Report File 

showed no fatal crashes for Lotus 

vehicles after the 1995 model year, no 

crashes for Elise vehicles, and no 

crashes involving children. 

In addition, Lotus argued that the 

continued weakening of the U.S. dollar 

vis-a`-vis the British Pound, when 

combined with competitive pressure to 

avoid significant vehicle price increases 

in the U.S. market, exacerbates the 

economic hardship problems 

confronting the company. 

As noted above, the second comment 

was submitted by Mr. Steven Blodgett 

(see the summary of public comments 

under Lamborghini for a complete 

discussion of this comment). Specific to 

Lotus, Mr. Blodgett requested the OMB 

and/or a separate independent 

contractor be used to evaluate the 

company’s financial data. The 

commenter also objected to the lack of 

supporting documentation from air bag 

suppliers to verify that the requirements 

for which the vehicle manufacturer 

seeks an exemption cannot be met. As 

further factors for consideration by the 

agency in reviewing the company’s 

temporary exemption request, Mr. 

Blodgett highlighted what he perceived 

to be the manufacturer’s delay in 

submitting a part 555 petition from the 

advanced air bag requirements and its 

presumed continuation of vehicle 

production prior to receiving the 

agency’s decision. 

Agency Decision on Lotus Petition. 

We are granting the Lotus petition to be 

exempted from portions of the advanced 

air bag regulation required by S14.2 

(specifically S14.5.2, S15, S17, S19, S21, 

S23, and S25). The exemption does not 

extend to the provision requiring a 

belted 50th percentile male barrier 

impact test (S14.5.1(a)). In addition to 

certifying compliance with S14.5.1(a), 

Lotus must continue to certify to the 

unbelted 50th percentile male barrier 

impact test in force prior to September 

1, 2006 (S5.1.2(a)). We note that the 

unbelted sled test in S13 is an 

acceptable option for the requirement. 

The agency’s rationale for this decision 

is as follows. 

The advanced air bag requirements 

present a unique challenge because they 

would require Lotus to completely 

redesign a major structural part of the 

extruded aluminum chassis in its 

vehicles. While the petitioner was aware 

of the new requirements for some time, 

it was not able to introduce a fully 

compliant vehicle by September 2006 as 

originally intended. Accordingly, it was 

determined that the Elise model, 

designed for the European market, 

would need to be sold in the U.S. 

market in order to generate revenue for 

a successor vehicle that complies with 

all U.S. requirements, including the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208. Although Lotus 

immediately engaged in homologation 

efforts, the company experienced a 

number of technical challenges 

precluding incorporation of advanced 

air bag into the Elise at this time, as 

follows. 

Lotus has been unable to acquire an 

‘‘off-the-shelf’’ advanced air bag system. 

First, many existing advanced air bag 

designs, technical specifications, and 

tooling are the intellectual property of 

the original equipment manufacturer 

(OEM) and not the supplier. Lotus 

experienced reluctance to allow the 

transfer of this intellectual property for 

its use. Second, the passenger air bag 

size, inflator pressure, venting, and 

deployment angle in those pre-existing 

air bag systems have been specifically 

designed for the original OEM vehicle 

crash pulse and interior geometry. 

Therefore, to source a passenger air bag 

requires reverse engineering, suiting the 

vehicles’ interior package, and 

modifying the vehicle crash pulse to 

suit the OEM air bag. Third, the 

suppression option for compliance was 

not possible due to the lack of available 

sensor technology. Instead, to pursue 

the low risk deployment option, Lotus 

would need a top mounted passenger air 

bag. However, to package the top 

mounted passenger air bag in the Elise 

would require a complete redesign of a 

major structural part of the extruded 

aluminum chassis. At the location 

where the passenger air bag would need 

to be situated, there is a major structural 

cross beam that is bonded into the 

chassis. New tooling for the instrument 

panel would also be required, along 

with a new air bag cover. The air bag 

cover would require a new unique 

design to overcome the issues of out-ofposition, small occupant air bag 

deployments. Fourth, advanced air bag 

occupant classification systems require 

a compliant seat frame base. The Lotus 

Elise has a rigid shell seat with only a 

minimum level of foam; therefore, 

another technical solution would be 

required, such as seat frame weight 

sensors. Currently, this solution is 

under development by suppliers but is 

not now available as a production 

solution. Lotus has made clear that such 

a prospect would pose a unique 

challenge to the company, due to the 

high cost of development and its 

extremely small sales volumes. 

Based upon the information provided 

by the petitioner, we understand that 

Lotus made good faith efforts to bring 

the Elise into compliance with the 

applicable requirements until such time 

as it became apparent that there was no 

practicable way to do so. No viable 

alternatives remain. The petitioner is 

unable to redesign its vehicle by the 

time the new advanced air bag 

requirements go into effect on 

September 1, 2006. 

After review of the income statements 

provided by the petitioner, the agency 

notes that the company has faced 

ongoing financial difficulties, having 

lost over $125 million over the past five 

years. If the petitioner is forced to 

discontinue selling the current model in 

the U.S. market, the resulting loss of 

sales would cause substantial economic 

hardship within the meaning of the 

statute, potentially forcing the company 

out of business in the U.S. According to 

Lotus, absent the exemption, the 

company would have no product to sell 

in the U.S. until sometime in 2008, and 

losses could swell to over $100 million 

in the next three years. However, 

Lotus’s problems would be 

compounded without its requested 

temporary exemption, because it needs 

the revenue from sales of the Elise over 

the next three years to finance 

development of a fully compliant 

vehicle for delivery to the U.S. market. 

Granting the exemption will allow Lotus 

to earn the resources necessary to bridge 

the gap in terms of development of a 

successor vehicle for the Elise that 

meets all U.S. requirements. 

While some of the information 

submitted by Lotus has been granted 

confidential treatment and is not 

detailed in this document, the petitioner 

made a comprehensive showing of its 

good faith efforts to comply with the 

requirements of S14.2 of FMVSS No. 

208, and detailed engineering and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
52862 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

18We note that Morgan submitted a supplement 

to its application, seeking a temporary exemption 

from all FMVSS No. 208 air bag requirements for 

a separate vehicle (i.e., its traditional Roadster 

model) (see Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25324–4 

(included with original application)). Although the 

Morgan Roadster previously had been equipped 

with standard air bags, the company stated that it 

has lost its original supplier for air bags for this 

vehicle and has been unable to find an alternate 

supplier. Due to the different issues involved, the 

agency will be addressing the supplemental request 

involving the Morgan Roadster in a separate 

Federal Register notice. 

financial information demonstrating 

that failure to obtain the exemption 

would cause substantial economic 

hardship. Specifically, the petitioner 

provided the following: 

1. Chronological analysis of Lotus’s 

efforts to comply, showing the 

relationship to the rulemaking history of 

the advanced air bag requirements. 

2. Itemized costs of each component 

that would have to be modified in order 

to achieve compliance. 

3. Discussion of alternative means of 

compliance and reasons for rejecting 

these alternatives. 

4. List of air bag suppliers that were 

approached in hopes of procuring 

necessary components (including OEM 

price-volume quotations). 

5. Explanations as to why components 

from newer, compliant vehicle lines 

could not be borrowed. 

6. Corporate income statements and 

balance sheets for the past three years, 

and projected income statements and 

balance sheets if the petition is denied. 

We note that Lotus is a wellestablished company with a small, but 

not insignificant U.S. presence. We 

believe that the reduction of sales 

revenue resulting from a denial of the 

company’s requested temporary 

exemption would have a negative 

impact not only on Lotus’s financial 

circumstances, but it would also 

negatively affect U.S. employment. 

Specifically, reduction in sales would 

also affect not only employees of Lotus 

Cars USA, but also Lotus dealers and 

repair specialists. Traditionally, the 

agency has concluded that the public 

interest is served in affording continued 

employment to the petitioner’s U.S. 

work force. Furthermore, as discussed 

in previous decisions on temporary 

exemption applications, the agency 

believes that the public interest is 

served by affording consumers a wider 

variety of motor vehicle choices. 

We believe that this exemption will 

have negligible impact on motor vehicle 

safety, because Lotus vehicles are not 

typically used for daily transportation. 

The agency examined the FARS 

(1995–2004) and the National 

Automotive Sampling System 

Crashworthiness Data System (NASS 

CDS) (1995–2005) for information on 

the vehicle in question. These data 

indicate that over that period, there 

were no NASS CDS cases for the Elise 

and three fatalities in FARS for the Elise 

predecessor (two adult male and one 

adult female occupants). There were no 

children or small women involved in 

crashes of the later Lotus Elise included 

in these databases. 

We note that, as explained below, 

prospective purchasers will be notified 

that the vehicle is exempted from the 

specified advanced air bag requirements 

of Standard No. 208. Under § 555.9(b), 

a manufacturer of an exempted 

passenger car must affix securely to the 

windshield or side window of each 

exempted vehicle a label containing a 

statement that the vehicle conforms to 

all applicable Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards in effect on the date of 

manufacture ‘‘except for Standard Nos. 

[listing the standards by number and 

title for which an exemption has been 

granted] exempted pursuant to NHTSA 

Exemption No. lll.’’ This label 

notifies prospective purchasers about 

the exemption and its subject. Under 

§ 555.9(c), this information must also be 

included on the vehicle’s certification 

label. 

The text of § 555.9 does not expressly 

indicate how the required statement on 

the two labels should read in situations 

where an exemption covers part but not 

all of a Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard. In this case, we believe that a 

statement that the vehicle has been 

exempted from Standard No. 208 

generally, without an indication that the 

exemption is limited to the specified 

advanced air bag provisions, could be 

misleading. A consumer might 

incorrectly believe that the vehicle has 

been exempted from all of Standard No. 

208’s requirements. Moreover, we 

believe that the addition of a reference 

to such provisions by number without 

an indication of its subject matter would 

be of little use to consumers, since they 

would not know the subject of those 

specific provisions. For these reasons, 

we believe the two labels should read in 

relevant part, ‘‘except for S14.5.2, S15, 

S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (Advanced 

Air Bag Requirements) of Standard No. 

208, Occupant Crash Protection, 

exempted pursuant to * * *.’’ We note 

that the phrase ‘‘Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements’’ is an abbreviated form of 

the title of S14 of Standard No. 208. We 

believe it is reasonable to interpret 

§ 555.9 as requiring this language. 

Although our response to the 

supplementary comments provided by 

the petitioner is reflected above, in 

terms of our response to the comment 

submitted by Mr. Blodgett, we note that 

the issues raised in that comment (e.g., 

extension of the comment period, 

duration of the comment period, 

documentation) are identical for all five 

petitioners. Accordingly, please see our 

decision for Lamborghini (Section IV of 

this notice) for the agency’s response to 

this comment submission. 

In sum, the agency concludes that 

Lotus has demonstrated good faith effort 

to bring the Elise into compliance with 

the advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208, and has also 

demonstrated the requisite financial 

hardship. Further, we find the 

exemption to be in the public interest. 

In consideration of the foregoing, we 

conclude that compliance with the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection, would cause substantial 

economic hardship to a manufacturer 

that has tried in good faith to comply 

with the standard. We further conclude 

that granting of an exemption would be 

in the public interest and consistent 

with the objectives of traffic safety. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(3)(B)(i), the Lotus Elise is 

granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption 

No. EX 06–4, from S14.5.2, S15, S17, 

S19, S21, S23, and S25 of 49 CFR 

571.208. The exemption is effective 

from September 1, 2006 to August 31, 

2009. 

VI. Morgan 18

Background. Founded in 1909, 

Morgan is a small privately-owned 

vehicle manufacturer producing 

approximately 600 specialty sports cars 

per year. Morgan manufactures several 

models, but only sells the Aero 8 in the 

U.S. Morgan intended to produce a 

vehicle line specific to the U.S. market, 

with Ford supplying the engine and 

transmission. However, for technical 

reasons, the project did not work out, 

and Morgan temporarily stopped selling 

vehicles in the U.S. in 2004. In May of 

2005, Morgan obtained a temporary 

exemption from the Bumper Standard 

and began selling the Aero 8 in the U.S. 

Morgan now asks for a temporary 

exemption from advanced air bag 

requirements because of financial 

hardship. If its exemption request is 

granted, the company anticipates 

importing into the U.S. 25 vehicles in 

2006, 250 vehicles in 2007, 250 in 2008, 

and 200 vehicles in 2009. 

Eligibility. Morgan produces 

approximately 600 vehicles per year. 

Morgan is an independent company. 

Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that 

Morgan is eligible to apply for a 

hardship exemption. 

Requested exemptions. Morgan stated 

that it intends for its U.S. Aero 8 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52863 

19When costs for interior redesign, crash cars, 

and tooling are included, the estimate rises to 

between $5,648,679 and $7,519,438. 20 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25324–9. 

production on and after September 1, 

2006 to comply with the rigid barrier 

belted test requirement using the 50th 

percentile adult male test dummy 

(S14.5.1) and the rigid barrier belted test 

requirement using the 5th percentile 

adult female test dummy (S15.1). 

Morgan states that the Aero 8’s 

compliance with the rigid barrier 

unbelted test requirement using the 50th 

percentile adult male test dummy was 

determined through the S13 sled test 

using a generic pulse, rather than a full 

vehicle test. This petitioner further 

states that it cannot at present say with 

certainty that the Aero 8 would comply 

with the unbelted test requirement 

under S14.5.2, which is a 20–25 mph 

rigid barrier test. 

As for the other advanced air bag 

requirements, Morgan states that it does 

not know whether the Aero 8 would be 

compliant, as Morgan has not had the 

financial ability to conduct the 

necessary development and testing. 

Morgan is requesting an exemption 

for the Aero 8 from the rigid barrier 

unbelted test requirement with the 50th 

percentile adult male test dummy 

(S14.5.2), the rigid barrier unbelted test 

requirement using the 5th percentile 

adult female test dummy (S15.2), the 

offset deformable barrier test 

requirement using the 5th percentile 

adult female test dummy (S17), the 

requirements to provide protection for 

infants and children (S19, S21, and S23) 

and the requirement using an out-ofposition 5th percentile adult female test 

dummy at the driver position (S25). 

Morgan is requesting the above 

exemption for the Aero 8 for the period 

from September 1, 2006 to August 31, 

2009. 

Economic Hardship. Morgan argues 

that meeting the advanced air bag 

requirements is estimated to cost 

between $3,196,179 and $5,066,938 and 

is not within the financial capability of 

the company.19 Morgan’s financial 

submission indicates the company’s 

losses over the last five years have 

totaled more than $3.6 million. In its 

initial petition, Morgan stated that it 

made a small profit in 2004 for the first 

time in three years. However, Morgan 

later supplied the agency with updated 

financial information for 2004 and 2005, 

which showed net losses for both of 

those fiscal years. 

Without an exemption, Morgan would 

be forced once again to withdraw from 

the U.S. market. With no income from 

U.S. sales, Morgan asserts that it will 

not be able to fund an advanced air bag 

program for a future vehicle or return to 

profitability. For the period between 

2006 and 2009, Morgan projects that the 

outcome of the agency’s decision on its 

exemption request will amount to the 

difference between a profit of over $3 

million and a loss of over $6 million. 

Morgan further asserts that if the 

petition is denied, it could soon become 

insolvent. 

Good faith efforts to comply. Morgan 

has been working with the air bag 

supplier Siemens to develop an 

advanced air bag system for the Aero 8. 

However, a lack of funds and technical 

problems precluded the timely 

implementation of an advanced air bag 

system for the Aero 8. The minimum 

time needed to develop an advanced air 

bag system (provided that there is a 

source of revenue) is two years. With no 

other product to sell in the meantime, 

Morgan needs to rely on Aero 8 sales to 

finance this project. 

Specific technical challenges include 

the following. Morgan does not have 

access to necessary sensor technology to 

pursue the ‘‘full suppression’’ passenger 

air bag option. Due to the design of the 

Aero 8 platform dashboard, an entirely 

new interior solution and design must 

be developed. Chassis modifications are 

anticipated due to the originally stiff 

chassis design. 

Morgan argues that an exemption 

would be in the public interest. Morgan 

put forth several arguments in favor of 

a finding that the requested exemption 

is consistent with the public interest. 

Specifically, Morgan asserts the current 

Aero 8’s standard air bag system does 

not pose a safety risk. Morgan knows of 

no injuries caused by the Aero 8’s 

current standard air bag system. If the 

exemption is denied and Morgan stops 

U.S. sales, Morgan’s U.S. dealers would 

unavoidably have numerous lay-offs, 

resulting in decreased U.S. 

unemployment. Denial of an exemption 

would reduce the consumer choice in 

the specialty sports car market sector 

into which Morgan cars are offered. The 

Aero 8 will not be used extensively by 

owners, and is unlikely to carry small 

children. Finally, according to Morgan, 

granting an exemption would assure the 

continued availability of proper parts 

and service support for existing Morgan 

owners. Without an exemption, Morgan 

would be forced from the U.S. market, 

and Morgan dealers will find it difficult 

to support existing customers. 

Summary of Public Comments. The 

agency received two comments related 

to the Morgan petition for a temporary 

exemption. The first comment was 

submitted by Morgan itself.20 In its 

comment, the company stated that its 

situation is similar to Ferrari’s request 

for a temporary exemption from the 

advanced air bag provisions of FMVSS 

No. 208, which the agency granted in a 

notice published in the Federal Register 

on May 22, 2006 (71 FR 29389) (Docket 

No. NHTSA–2005–23093). Specifically, 

Morgan presented the following 

arguments in support of its petition. 

Like Ferrari, Morgan stated that its 

product cycles must last longer than the 

industry average due to the high cost of 

development and extremely small sales 

volumes. Morgan stated that it did not 

anticipate sale of the Aero 8 in the U.S., 

but the company later determined that 

it would be necessary to market this 

vehicle in the U.S. Once such decision 

was made, Morgan stated that it made 

a good faith effort to find a practicable 

way to comply with the advanced air 

bag requirements, but it was unable to 

do so. However, the petitioner stated 

that in order to meet the advanced air 

bag requirements, it would face the 

unique challenge of needing to 

completely redesign the vehicle before 

the end of its life cycle. 

Morgan stated that its vehicle also 

incorporates additional active and 

passive safety systems, including load 

limiters, electronic brakeforce 

distribution (EBD), ABS, drag torque 

control (for stability), and a tire pressure 

monitoring system (in advance of the 

compliance date for small volume 

manufacturers under FMVSS No. 138, 

Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems). 

In terms of safety impact, Morgan 

argued that it intends to produce only 

400 Aero 8 vehicles over three years and 

that these vehicles are not typically 

used for daily transportation, have 

substantially lower than average annual 

usage, and typically are not used to 

transport children. Accordingly, the 

petitioner argued that its requested 

exemption for these vehicles would 

have a negligible effect on safety. The 

company added that its search of 

NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS) database from 1995–

2003 and 2004 Annual Report File did 

not show any crashes involving 

Morgan’s vehicle during that timeframe. 

In addition, Morgan argued that the 

continued weakening of the U.S. dollar 

vis-a-vis the British Pound, when 

combined with competitive pressure to 

avoid significant vehicle price increases 

in the U.S. market, exacerbates the 

economic hardship problems 

confronting the company. Morgan also 

argued that denial of its exemption 

request would have a negative 

employment impact on its U.S. 

dealerships. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
52864 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

21See page 12 of Morgan’s petition and page 1 of 

Morgan’s comments. 

As noted above, the second comment 

was submitted by Mr. Steven Blodgett 

(see the summary of public comments 

under Lamborghini for a complete 

discussion of this comment). Specific to 

Morgan, Mr. Blodgett requested the 

OMB and/or a separate independent 

contractor be used to evaluate the 

company’s financial data. The 

commenter also objected to the lack of 

supporting documentation from air bag 

suppliers to verify that the requirements 

for which the vehicle manufacturer 

seeks an exemption cannot be met. As 

further factors for consideration by the 

agency in reviewing the company’s 

temporary exemption request, Mr. 

Blodgett highlighted what he perceived 

to be the manufacturer’s delay in 

submitting a part 555 petition from the 

advanced air bag requirements and its 

presumed continuation of vehicle 

production prior to receiving the 

agency’s decision. 

Agency Decision on Morgan Petition. 

We are granting the Morgan petition to 

be exempted from portions of the 

advanced air bag regulation required by 

S14.2 (specifically S15.2, S17, S19, S21, 

S23, and S25). The extent of the 

exemption is limited to those provision 

requiring an unbelted 5th percentile 

female barrier impact (S15.2), a belted 

5th percentile female offset frontal 

impact (S17), testing with child 

dummies (S19, S21 and S23) and the 

5th percentile female dummy out-ofposition testing (S25). Morgan must 

certify to 50th percentile male barrier 

testing (S14.5.1(a) and S14.5.2), and 5th 

percentile female belted barrier testing 

(S15.1). The agency’s rationale for this 

decision is as follows. 

The advanced air bag requirements 

present a unique challenge because they 

would require Morgan to undertake a 

major redesign of its vehicles, in order 

to overcome the engineering limitations 

of the Aero 8. While the petitioner was 

aware of the new requirements for some 

time, its business plans to introduce a 

fully U.S. compliant vehicle did not 

materialize due to technical problems. 

As a result, Morgan subsequently 

determined that it would be necessary 

to introduce the Aero 8 into the U.S. 

market in order to finance the 

development of a fully compliant 

successor vehicle, thereby raising the 

problem of compliance with the 

advanced air bag requirements. 

Morgan explained the main 

engineering challenges precluding 

incorporation of advanced air bag into 

the Aero 8 at this time, as follows. The 

company does not have access to 

necessary sensor technology to pursue 

the ‘‘full suppression’’ passenger air bag 

option. In addition, due to the design of 

the Aero 8 platform dashboard, an 

entirely new interior solution and 

design must be developed, and chassis 

modifications are anticipated due to the 

originally stiff chassis design. The 

petitioner states that it would take 

approximately two years to resolve 

these technical issues surrounding 

advanced air bags, given adequate 

funding. Morgan has made clear that 

such a prospect would pose a unique 

challenge to the company, due to the 

high cost of development and its 

extremely small sales volumes. 

Based upon the information provided 

by the petitioner, we understand that 

Morgan made good faith efforts to bring 

the Aero 8 into compliance with the 

applicable requirements until such time 

as it became apparent that there was no 

practicable way to do so. The company 

had a difficult time in gaining access to 

advanced air bag technology (which 

presumably reflects suppliers’ initial 

focus on meeting the needs of large 

volume manufacturers), and this further 

reduced the lead time available for 

development. Furthermore, because 

Morgan is a fully independent company, 

there was no possibility of technology 

transfer from a larger parent company. 

Consequently, no viable alternatives 

remain. The petitioner is unable to 

redesign its vehicle by the time the new 

advanced air bag requirements go into 

effect on September 1, 2006. 

After review of the income statements 

provided by the petitioner, the agency 

notes that the company has faced 

ongoing financial difficulties, 

experiencing financial losses of about $4 

million over the past five years (2001–

2005). If the petitioner is forced to 

discontinue selling the current model in 

the U.S. market, the resulting loss of 

sales would cause substantial economic 

hardship within the meaning of the 

statute, potentially amounting to the 

difference between a profit of over $3 

million and a loss of over $6 million 

over the period from 2006–2009. 

Ultimately, denial of the exemption 

request could threaten the company’s 

solvency. 

According to Morgan, absent the 

exemption, the company anticipates 

being forced to withdraw from the U.S. 

market. However, Morgan’s problems 

would be compounded without its 

requested temporary exemption, 

because it needs the revenue from sales 

of the Aero 8 over the next three years 

to finance development of a fully 

compliant vehicle for delivery to the 

U.S. market. Granting the exemption 

will allow Morgan to earn the resources 

necessary to bridge the gap in terms of 

development of a successor vehicle for 

the Aero 8 that meets all U.S. 

requirements. 

While some of the information 

submitted by Morgan has been granted 

confidential treatment and is not 

detailed in this document, the petitioner 

made a comprehensive showing of its 

good faith efforts to comply with the 

requirements of S14.2 of FMVSS No. 

208, and detailed engineering and 

financial information demonstrating 

that failure to obtain the exemption 

would cause substantial economic 

hardship. Specifically, the petitioner 

provided the following: 

1. Chronological analysis of Morgan’s 

efforts to comply, showing the 

relationship to the rulemaking history of 

the advanced air bag requirements. 

2. Itemized costs of each component 

that would have to be modified in order 

to achieve compliance. 

3. List of air bag suppliers that were 

approached in hopes of procuring 

necessary components (including OEM 

price-volume quotations). 

4. Explanations as to why components 

from newer, compliant vehicle lines 

could not be borrowed. 

5. Corporate income statements and 

balance sheets for the past three years, 

and projected income statements and 

balance sheets if the petition is denied. 

We note that reduction of sales 

revenue resulting from a denial of the 

company’s requested temporary 

exemption would have a negative 

impact not only on Morgan’s financial 

circumstances, but it would also 

negatively affect U.S. employment. 

Specifically, reduction in sales would 

also affect Morgan dealers and repair 

specialists, negatively impacting their 

ability to provide parts and services to 

current Morgan owners. Traditionally, 

the agency has concluded that the 

public interest is served in affording 

continued employment to the 

petitioner’s U.S. work force. 

Furthermore, as discussed in previous 

decisions on temporary exemption 

applications, the agency believes that 

the public interest is served by affording 

consumers a wider variety of motor 

vehicle choices. 

We also note that the Aero 8 features 

several advanced ‘‘active’’ safety 

features. These features are listed in the 

petitioner’s application.21 While the 

availability of these features is not 

critical to our decision, it is a factor in 

considering whether the exemption is in 

the public interest. 

We believe that this exemption will 

have negligible impact on motor vehicle 

safety because of the limited number of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52865 

22The Maserati vehicles in question differ only in 

that one is a hardtop version (the Coupe) and the 

other is a convertible softtop version (the Spyder). 23 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25324–10. 

vehicles affected (approximately 400 

imported for the duration of the 

exemption), and because Morgan 

vehicles are not typically used for daily 

transportation. Their annual usage 

(approximately 5,000 miles per year) is 

substantially lower compared to 

vehicles used for everyday 

transportation. 

Furthermore, the agency examined 

the FARS (1995–2004) and the National 

Automotive Sampling System 

Crashworthiness Data System (NASS 

CDS) (1995–2005) for information on 

the vehicle in question (which began 

sales in May 2005) or its predecessor 

vehicle (the Plus 8). These data indicate 

that over that period, there were no 

NASS CDS and no FARS cases for the 

Aero 8 or its predecessor. Thus, there 

were no children or small women 

involved in crashes of these Morgan 

vehicles included in these databases. 

We note that, as explained below, 

prospective purchasers will be notified 

that the vehicle is exempted from the 

specified advanced air bag requirements 

of Standard No. 208. Under § 555.9(b), 

a manufacturer of an exempted 

passenger car must affix securely to the 

windshield or side window of each 

exempted vehicle a label containing a 

statement that the vehicle conforms to 

all applicable Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards in effect on the date of 

manufacture ‘‘except for Standard Nos. 

[listing the standards by number and 

title for which an exemption has been 

granted] exempted pursuant to NHTSA 

Exemption No. lll.’’ This label 

notifies prospective purchasers about 

the exemption and its subject. Under 

§ 555.9(c), this information must also be 

included on the vehicle’s certification 

label. 

The text of § 555.9 does not expressly 

indicate how the required statement on 

the two labels should read in situations 

where an exemption covers part but not 

all of a Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard. In this case, we believe that a 

statement that the vehicle has been 

exempted from Standard No. 208 

generally, without an indication that the 

exemption is limited to the specified 

advanced air bag provisions, could be 

misleading. A consumer might 

incorrectly believe that the vehicle has 

been exempted from all of Standard No. 

208’s requirements. Moreover, we 

believe that the addition of a reference 

to such provisions by number without 

an indication of its subject matter would 

be of little use to consumers, since they 

would not know the subject of those 

specific provisions. For these reasons, 

we believe the two labels should read in 

relevant part, ‘‘except for S15.2, S17, 

S19, S21, S23, and S25 (Advanced Air 

Bag Requirements) of Standard No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection, exempted 

pursuant to * * *.’’ We note that the 

phrase ‘‘Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements’’ is an abbreviated form of 

the title of S14 of Standard No. 208. We 

believe it is reasonable to interpret 

§ 555.9 as requiring this language. 

Our response to the supplementary 

comments provided by the petitioner is 

reflected above. In terms of our response 

to the comment submitted by Mr. 

Blodgett, we note that the issues raised 

in that comment (e.g., extension of the 

comment period, duration of the 

comment period, documentation) are 

identical for all five petitioners. 

Accordingly, please see our decision for 

Lamborghini (Section IV of this notice) 

for the agency’s response to this 

comment submission. 

In sum, the agency concludes that 

Morgan has demonstrated good faith 

effort to bring the Aero 8 into 

compliance with the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208, and 

has also demonstrated the requisite 

financial hardship. Further, we find the 

exemption to be in the public interest. 

In consideration of the foregoing, we 

conclude that compliance with the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection, would cause substantial 

economic hardship to a manufacturer 

that has tried in good faith to comply 

with the standard. We further conclude 

that granting of an exemption would be 

in the public interest and consistent 

with the objectives of traffic safety. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(3)(B)(i), the Morgan Aero 8 is 

granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption 

No. EX 06–5, from S15.2, S17, S19, S21, 

S23, and S25 of 49 CFR 571.208. The 

exemption is effective from September 

1, 2006 to August 31, 2009. 

VII. Maserati 

Background. Maserati is a small 

volume Italian automobile manufacturer 

formed in 1914 that produces 

performance sports cars and luxury 

automobiles. Over the years, Maserati 

has experienced frequent changes in 

ownership and financial hardship. The 

exemption is being sought for the 

Maserati Coupe/Spyder 22 for a period of 

16 months. 

Eligibility. Maserati produced less 

than 6,000 vehicles in the most recent 

year of production. More specifically, 

the petitioner reported the following 

worldwide production and U.S. imports 

over the past few years: 

Maserati S.p.A Worldwide 

production U.S. imports 

2003 ............... 2900 cars .... 1073 cars. 

2004 ............... 4722 cars .... 1747 cars. 

2005 ............... 5571 cars .... 2061 cars. 

However, Maserati is owned by Fiat, 

a large vehicle manufacturer. The 

petitioner stated that there is no 

similarity of design between the cars 

produced by Maserati and Fiat, and that 

Maserati designed and engineered the 

Coupe/Spyder without the direct 

involvement of Fiat. In addition, 

Maserati stated that its vehicles are 

imported and sold though its own 

dealer networks, not those of Fiat. In 

sum, Maserati asserts that its 

relationship with Fiat is ‘‘arm’s-length.’’

Maserati operates independently, and 

services provided by Fiat are paid for by 

Maserati. 

In making our determination 

regarding eligibility, we note that the 

public comment of the COSVAM raised 

the issue of whether certain of the 

petitioners (Bugatti, Lamborghini, 

Maserati) are eligible for temporary 

exemptions under part 555, in light of 

their financial relationships to larger 

parent companies which are also 

vehicle manufacturers. Specifically, 

COSVAM argued that the Maserati 

vehicle has been engineered by Ferrari 

and that the technology for compliance 

with the requirements of FMVSS No. 

208 should be readily available. The 

commenter asserted that at one point, 

the two companies shared the same staff 

for certification (homologation) and that 

the two companies have a long history 

of technology sharing. COSVAM stated 

that the two companies’ recent 

corporate separation was defined in the 

public record as ‘‘administrative rather 

than technological,’’ and it stated that 

Maserati continues to use powertrains 

and other engineering equipment 

developed by and for Ferrari (which is 

majority-owned by Fiat S.p.A.). Thus, 

the commenter expressed doubt as to 

whether Maserati would be unable to 

comply with the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208. 

Accordingly, the commenter argued that 

Maserati should be considered ineligible 

for a temporary exemption under part 

555. 

Maserati also submitted a public 

comment 23 on its own petition, in 

which it sought to clarify its 

relationship with its parent company, 

arguing that it is similar to that of 

Ferrari which is also majority-owned by 

Fiat. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
52866 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

24The dollar-euro exchange rate used herein is 1 

euro = $1.20. 

The agency examined the relationship 

between Maserati and Fiat (and its 

subsidiary Ferrari). We have concluded 

that Maserati is eligible to apply for a 

temporary exemption based on the 

following factors. First, there is no 

similarity of design between the cars 

produced by Maserati and cars 

produced by Fiat (or Ferrari), and 

Maserati has stated that its Coupe/ 

Spyder was designed without assistance 

from Fiat (or Ferrari). Second, Maserati 

cars are imported and sold through 

separate distribution channels 

independent of Fiat, which does not sell 

vehicles in the U.S, and of Ferrari. 

Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that 

Fiat (and Ferrari) are not manufacturers 

of Maserati vehicles by virtue of being 

a sponsor. 

Requested exemptions. Maserati 

stated that it intends for the Coupe/ 

Spyder produced for the United States 

market on and after September 1, 2006 

to comply with the rigid barrier belted 

and unbelted test requirements using 

the 50th percentile adult male test 

dummy (S14.5). 

As for the Coupe/Spyder’s 

compliance with the other advanced air 

bag requirements, Maserati states that it 

does not know whether the Coupe/ 

Spyder will be compliant as it has not 

had the financial ability to conduct the 

necessary development and testing. 

Accordingly, Maserati is requesting an 

exemption from the rigid barrier test 

requirement using the 5th percentile 

adult female test dummy (belted and 

unbelted, S15), the offset deformable 

barrier test requirement using the 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy 

(S17), the requirements to provide 

protection for infants and children (S19, 

S21, and S23) and the requirement 

using an out-of-position 5th percentile 

adult female test dummy at the driver 

position (S25). 

Maserati is requesting the above 

exemption for the Coupe/Spyder for the 

period from September 1, 2006 to 

December 31, 2007. 

Economic hardship. Over the period 

of 2000–2005, the company lost 

$385,195,998 (320,996,665 euros).24 The 

petitioner argues that an exemption is 

needed in order to avoid massive 

disruptions to the Maserati production 

system and loss of revenue until a fullycompliant model is introduced in early 

2008. The exempted vehicles will 

‘‘bridge the gap’’ between the current 

Coupe/Spyder, with standard air bags, 

and the next version of the model line 

arriving in 2008 with advanced air bags. 

The petitioners stated that it does not 

have the resources to fund advanced air 

bag development for both the Coupe/ 

Spyder and the successor vehicle due in 

2008, and that an advanced air bag 

system tailored to the one vehicle could 

not be subsequently used in the other, 

due to completely different vehicle 

platforms. Furthermore, even if it were 

technically possible to install advanced 

air bags in the Coupe/Spyder, Maserati 

stated that the added cost on a pervehicle basis would price the model out 

of the market. If the exemption is 

denied, the petitioner anticipates 

layoffs, negative impacts for Maserati 

dealers and owners in the U.S., and a 

delay in introducing a new, fully 

complaint vehicle. 

Good faith efforts to comply. Maserati 

states that it has been unable to 

overcome engineering problems 

associated with installing advanced air 

bags in the current Coupe/Spyder, a 

vehicle platform that is soon to go out 

of production. The design of the current 

Coupe/Spyder started in 1996, before 

the advanced air bag rule was 

promulgated. In the late 1990s, when 

Maserati decided to re-enter the U.S. 

market, it made the decision that the 

Coupe/Spyder would have a life span in 

the U.S. of five years, from 2002 through 

2006. This decision was based on the 

fact that the model was introduced in 

Europe in 1997, and that the basic 

platform would, therefore, have a total 

life span of nine years. Only in late 

2005, Maserati concluded that it had to 

extend the life span of the Coupe/ 

Spyder, by 16 months beyond the 

planned 2006 end date, because a fully 

compliant vehicle is not yet ready. 

According to Maserati, it tried, but 

could not overcome the technical 

challenges associated with borrowing 

the advanced air bag system from 

Maserati’s other model, the 

Quattroporte, because the steering 

column and steering wheel are 

incompatible with the electrical system 

in the Coupe/Spyder. Use of the 

Quattroporte’s passenger air bag would 

require redesigning the entire Coupe/ 

Spyder dashboard. To position the 

Quattroporte’s sensors in the Coupe/ 

Spyder, it would have been necessary to 

change the seats. The sensors also could 

not be packaged in the Coupe/Spyder 

due to space problems, and the sensor 

software was incompatible with the 

Coupe/Spyder’s electrical system. 

Maserati argues that an exemption 

would be in the public interest. Maserati 

put forth several arguments in favor of 

a finding that the requested exemption 

is consistent with the public interest. 

Specifically, Maserati asserts the current 

Coupe/Spyder’s air bag system does not 

pose a safety risk. Maserati knows of no 

injuries caused by the Coupe/Spyder’s 

current standard air bag system. If the 

exemption is denied and Maserati stops 

U.S. sales, Maserati states that its 

goodwill with its U.S. dealers would be 

negatively impacted. Further, Maserati 

asserts that denial of an exemption 

would reduce consumer choice in the 

specialty sports car market sector into 

which Maserati cars are offered. 

Masearti asserts that the Coupe/Spyder 

will not be used extensively by owners, 

and is unlikely to carry small children. 

Finally, according to Maserati, granting 

an exemption would assure the 

continued availability of proper parts 

and service support for existing 

Maserati owners. 

Summary of Public Comments. The 

agency received three comments on the 

Maserati petition for a temporary 

exemption. The first comment was 

submitted by Maserati itself. In its 

comment, the company stated that its 

situation is similar to Ferrari’s request 

for a temporary exemption from the 

advanced air bag provisions of FMVSS 

No. 208, which the agency granted in a 

notice published in the Federal Register 

on May 22, 2006 (71 FR 29389) (Docket 

No. NHTSA–2005–23093). Specifically, 

Maserati presented the following 

arguments in support of its petition. 

Like Ferarri, Maserati stated that it 

product cycles must last longer than the 

industry average due to the high cost of 

development and extremely small sales 

volumes. Maserati stated that it did not 

anticipate continued production of the 

Coupe/Spyder after September 1, 2006, 

but the company later determined that 

it would be necessary to continue 

production of that model. According to 

Maserati, advanced air bag requirements 

were not anticipated when designing 

the Coupe/Spyder’s vehicle platform, 

which arose from a predecessor vehicle 

developed circa 1995. However, the 

petitioner stated that in order to meet 

the advanced air bag requirements, it 

would face the unique challenge of 

needing to completely redesign the 

vehicle before the end of its life cycle. 

Maserati stated that it made a good faith 

effort to find a practicable way to 

comply with the advanced air bag 

requirements, but it was unable to do so. 

As discussed previously, Maserati 

argued that it is an independent 

manufacturer eligible for an exemption 

under 49 CFR part 555, despite the fact 

that the company is majority-owned by 

Fiat. The petitioner argued that its 

relationship to its parent company is 

similar to that of Ferarri, which is also 

majority-owned by Fiat. Maserati also 

noted that denial of its exemption 

request would have a negative 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52867 

25According to the petitioner, Maserati operated 

under one corporate ownership-management 

structure (DeTomaso), which last produced vehicles 

for sale in the U.S. during model year 1991. The 

company was subsequently sold to its current 

leadership, which resumed sales in the U.S. in 

2001. According to the petitioner, the two 

generations of vehicles were significantly different, 

although both shared the same Maserati name. 

employment impact on both its U.S. 

subsidiary and its U.S. dealerships. 

Maserati stated that in addition to 

standard air bags, its vehicle also 

incorporates additional active and 

passive safety systems, including 

electronic stability control, ABS, side air 

bags, and a fixed rollover bar on the 

convertible. Furthermore, the company 

stated that the Coupe/Spyder has been 

equipped with an air bag on-off switch. 

In terms of safety impact, Maserati 

argued that it intends to produce only 

about 700 Coupe/Spyder vehicles over 

16 months and that these vehicles are 

not typically used for daily 

transportation, have substantially lower 

than average annual usage, and typically 

are not used to transport children. 

Accordingly, the petitioner argued that 

its requested exemption for these 

vehicles would have a negligible effect 

on safety. The company added that its 

search of NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS) database from 

1995–2003 and 2004 Annual Report File 

showed no accident involving a 

Maserati vehicle built by the ownershipmanagement post-DeTomaso.25

In addition, Maserati argued that the 

continued weakening of the U.S. dollar 

vis-a-vis the euro, when combined with 

competitive pressure to avoid 

significant vehicle price increases in the 

U.S. market, exacerbates the economic 

hardship problems confronting the 

company. 

The second comment was submitted 

by Mr. Steven Blodgett (see the 

summary of public comments under 

Lamborghini for a complete discussion 

of this comment). Specific to Maserati, 

Mr. Blodgett requested the OMB and/or 

a separate independent contractor be 

used to evaluate the company’s 

financial data. The commenter also 

objected to the lack of supporting 

documentation from air bag suppliers to 

verify that the requirements for which 

the vehicle manufacturer seeks an 

exemption cannot be met. As further 

factors for consideration by the agency 

in reviewing the company’s temporary 

exemption request, Mr. Blodgett 

highlighted what he perceived to be the 

manufacturer’s delay in submitting a 

part 555 petition from the advanced air 

bag requirements and its presumed 

continuation of vehicle production prior 

to receiving the agency’s decision. 

The third comment was submitted by 

COSVAM. As discussed previously, 

COSVAM raised the issue of whether 

certain of the petitioners (Bugatti, 

Lamborghini, Maserati) are eligible for 

temporary exemptions under part 555, 

in light of their financial relationships 

to larger parent companies which are 

also vehicle manufacturers (see 

Eligibility section above for details and 

the agency’s decision on that issue). 

Agency Decision on Maserati Petition. 

We are granting the Maserati petition to 

be exempted from portions of the 

advanced air bag regulation required by 

S14.2 (specifically S15, S17, S19, S21, 

S23, and S25). The exemption does not 

extent to the provisions requiring 50th 

percentile male barrier impact tests 

(S14.5.1(a) and S14.5.2). Thus, Maserati 

must certify to S14.5.1(a) and S14.5.2. 

The agency’s rationale for this decision 

is as follows. 

The advanced air bag requirements 

present a unique challenge because they 

would require Maserati to conduct a 

major redesign its vehicles, in order to 

overcome the existing engineering and 

technical limitations based upon design 

of the Coupe/Spyder. While the 

petitioner was aware of the new 

requirements for some time, its business 

plans changed, and it was subsequently 

determined that the Coupe/Spyder’s 

production run would need to be 

extended beyond 2006 (i.e., for an 

additional 16 months) because a 

successor vehicle is not ready, thereby 

raising the problem of compliance with 

the advanced air bag requirements. The 

petitioner requested a temporary 

exemption in order to prevent a gap in 

its U.S. product portfolio, thereby 

maintaining its market position in the 

U.S. and avoiding financial harm to its 

dealer network. 

Maserati explained the main 

engineering challenges precluding 

incorporation of advanced air bag into 

the Coupe/Spyder at this time, as 

follows. After examining available 

options, Maserati determined that its 

best chance of meeting the advanced air 

bag requirements would involve 

borrowing the advanced air bag system 

from Maserati’s other model, the 

Quattroporte. However, this strategy did 

not work, because the Quattroporte’s 

steering column and steering wheel are 

incompatible with the electrical system 

in the Coupe/Spyder. Furthermore, it 

was determined that use of the 

Quattroporte’s passenger air bag would 

require redesigning the entire Coupe/ 

Spyder dashboard and that to position 

the Quattroporte’s sensors in the Coupe/ 

Spyder, it would have been necessary to 

change the seats. The sensors also could 

not be packaged in the Coupe/Spyder 

due to space problems, and the sensor 

software was incompatible with the 

Coupe/Spyder’s electrical system. Thus, 

Maserati has made clear that such a 

prospect would pose a unique challenge 

to the company, due to the high cost of 

development and its extremely small 

sales volumes. 

Based upon the information provided 

by the petitioner, we understand that 

Maserati made good faith efforts to bring 

the Coupe/Spyder into compliance with 

the applicable requirements until such 

time as it became apparent that there 

was no practicable way to do so. No 

viable alternatives remain. The 

petitioner is unable to redesign its 

vehicle by the time the new advanced 

air bag requirements go into effect on 

September 1, 2006. 

After review of the income statements 

provided by the petitioner, the agency 

notes that the company has faced 

ongoing financial difficulties, having 

lost over $385 million (320 million 

euros) over the period from 2001–2005. 

If the petitioner is forced to discontinue 

selling the current model in the U.S. 

market, the resulting loss of sales and 

revenue would cause substantial 

economic hardship within the meaning 

of the statute. However, Maserati’s 

problems would be compounded 

without its requested temporary 

exemption, because it needs the revenue 

from sales of the Coupe/Spyder over the 

next 16 months to finance development 

of a fully compliant vehicle for delivery 

to the U.S. market in 2008. Granting the 

exemption will allow Maserati to earn 

the resources necessary to bridge the 

gap in terms of development of a 

successor vehicle for the Coupe/Spyder 

that meets all U.S. requirements. 

While some of the information 

submitted by Maserati has been granted 

confidential treatment and is not 

detailed in this document, the petitioner 

made a comprehensive showing of its 

good faith efforts to comply with the 

requirements of S14.2 of FMVSS No. 

208, and detailed engineering and 

financial information demonstrating 

that failure to obtain the exemption 

would cause substantial economic 

hardship. Specifically, the petitioner 

provided the following: 

1. Chronological analysis of Maserati’s 

efforts to comply, showing the 

relationship to the rulemaking history of 

the advanced air bag requirements. 

2. Discussion of alternative means of 

compliance and reasons for rejecting 

these alternatives. 

3. Explanations as to why components 

from newer, compliant vehicle lines 

could not be borrowed. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
52868 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

26Because the company is wholly owned by Fiat 

and does not publish financial statements, Maserati 

did not include pro forma projected statements. 

Nevertheless, the financial statements for prior 

years provided by Maserati suggest that the 

company has a ways to go before achieving 

profitability on its operations. Given its cumulative 

losses, the company is not in a position to incur the 

costs of a new development program to be spread 

over only 700 units, thereby raising the retail price 

of the Coupe/Spyder significantly. 

27See page 13 of Maserati’s petition and page 1 

of Maserati’s comments. 

4. Corporate incomes statements and 

balance sheets for the past three years.26

Although Maserati did not supply 

OEM price-volume quotation from air 

bag suppliers in terms of a compliant 

system for the Coupe/Spyder, we 

nevertheless believe that such 

discussions took place, as the company 

explored the alternatives of either 

upgrading the existing standard air bag 

on the Coupe/Spyder or adapting the 

Quattroporte’s advanced air bag system 

to that vehicle. Neither of these 

alternatives proved feasible, either 

developmentally or commercially. 

We note that Maserati is a wellestablished company with a small, but 

not insignificant U.S. presence. We 

believe that the reduction of sales 

revenue resulting from a denial of the 

company’s requested temporary 

exemption would have a negative 

impact not only on Maserati’s financial 

circumstances, but it would also 

negatively affect U.S. employment. 

Specifically, reduction in sales would 

also affect Maserati’s U.S. subsidiaries, 

dealers, and repair specialists, which 

could in turn negatively impact the 

availability of parts and services to 

existing Maserati owners. Traditionally, 

the agency has concluded that the 

public interest is served in affording 

continued employment to the 

petitioner’s U.S. work force. 

Furthermore, as discussed in previous 

decisions on temporary exemption 

applications, the agency believes that 

the public interest is served by affording 

consumers a wider variety of motor 

vehicle choices. 

We also note that the Coupe/Spyder 

features several advanced ‘‘active’’

safety features. These features are listed 

in the petitioner’s application.27 While 

the availability of these features is not 

critical to our decision, it is a factor in 

considering whether the exemption is in 

the public interest. 

We believe that this exemption will 

have negligible impact on motor vehicle 

safety because of the limited number of 

vehicles affected (not more than 700 for 

the duration of the exemption), and 

because Maserati vehicles are not 

typically used for daily transportation. 

Their annual usage (less than 10,000 

miles per year on average) is 

substantially lower compared to 

vehicles used for everyday 

transportation. 

In addition, Maserati has voluntarily 

included an air bag on-off switch for 

passenger air bag suppression for the 

protection of children being transported 

in the right front seating position. This 

will enable the passenger air bag to be 

manually turned off when a child is 

present, which supports our findings 

that this exemption would have a 

negligible impact on motor vehicle 

safety. 

Furthermore, the agency examined 

the FARS (1995–2004) and the National 

Automotive Sampling System 

Crashworthiness Data System (NASS 

CDS) (1995–2005) for information on 

the vehicle in question. These data 

indicate that over that period, there 

were no NASS CDS cases and one FARS 

case for a model year 1987 Coupe/ 

Spyder (male driver). Thus, there were 

no children or small women involved in 

crashes of the Maserati Coupe/Spyder 

included in these databases. 

We note that, as explained below, 

prospective purchasers will be notified 

that the vehicle is exempted from the 

specified advanced air bag requirements 

of Standard No. 208. Under § 555.9(b), 

a manufacturer of an exempted 

passenger car must affix securely to the 

windshield or side window of each 

exempted vehicle a label containing a 

statement that the vehicle conforms to 

all applicable Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards in effect on the date of 

manufacture ‘‘except for Standard Nos. 

[listing the standards by number and 

title for which an exemption has been 

granted] exempted pursuant to NHTSA 

Exemption No. lll.’’ This label 

notifies prospective purchasers about 

the exemption and its subject. Under 

§ 555.9(c), this information must also be 

included on the vehicle’s certification 

label. 

The text of § 555.9 does not expressly 

indicate how the required statement on 

the two labels should read in situations 

where an exemption covers part but not 

all of a Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard. In this case, we believe that a 

statement that the vehicle has been 

exempted from Standard No. 208 

generally, without an indication that the 

exemption is limited to the specified 

advanced air bag provisions, could be 

misleading. A consumer might 

incorrectly believe that the vehicle has 

been exempted from all of Standard No. 

208’s requirements. Moreover, we 

believe that the addition of a reference 

to such provisions by number without 

an indication of its subject matter would 

be of little use to consumers, since they 

would not know the subject of those 

specific provisions. For these reasons, 

we believe the two labels should read in 

relevant part, ‘‘except for S15, S17, S19, 

S21, S23, and S25 (Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements) of Standard No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection, exempted 

pursuant to * * *.’’ We note that the 

phrase ‘‘Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements’’ is an abbreviated form of 

the title of S14 of Standard No. 208. We 

believe it is reasonable to interpret 

§ 555.9 as requiring this language. 

Although our response to the 

supplementary comments provided by 

the petitioner is reflected above, we 

would offer the following response to 

the other public comments received on 

the Maserati petition. In terms of our 

response to the comment submitted by 

Mr. Blodgett, we note that the issues 

raised in that comment (e.g., extension 

of the comment period, duration of the 

comment period, documentation) are 

identical for all five petitioners. 

Accordingly, please see our decision for 

Lamborghini (Section IV of this notice) 

for the agency’s response to this 

comment submission. As noted 

previously, the comments of COSVAM 

were addressed under the discussion of 

Eligibility above. 

In sum, the agency concludes that 

Maserati has demonstrated good faith 

effort to bring the Coupe/Spyder into 

compliance with the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208, and 

has also demonstrated the requisite 

financial hardship. Further, we find the 

exemption to be in the public interest. 

In consideration of the foregoing, we 

conclude that compliance with the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection, would cause substantial 

economic hardship to a manufacturer 

that has tried in good faith to comply 

with the standard. We further conclude 

that granting of an exemption would be 

in the public interest and consistent 

with the objectives of traffic safety. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(3)(B)(i), the Maserati Coupe/ 

Spyder is granted NHTSA Temporary 

Exemption No. EX 06–6, from S15, S17, 

S19, S21, S23, and S25 of 49 CFR 

571.208. The exemption is effective 

from September 1, 2006 to December 31, 

2007. 

Issued on: August 31, 2006. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–7487 Filed 9–6–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES